On Jan 23, 2013, at 2:49 AM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: My sympathies lie with Tab, but assuming this spec proceeds in some form I'd like to make my own objection --- which I think can actually be resolved without tossing out the spec or its goals: In the sub-thread starting at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Apr/0059.html, I argued that instead of treating CDMs as an unbounded set of black boxes, for the sake of interoperability each supported CDM should be registered and documentation/specification provided to maximise interoperability of UAs and content providers with CDMs (possibly by reference to non-W3C specs). For example if a CDM is based on a platform DRM framework with a public API, the behavior of the CDM should be specified in terms of that public API. At least Mark Watson seemed broadly sympathetic to this goal, so I'm disappointed to see that the current draft has nothing in this direction whatsoever. So I object to publication of the draft on the same grounds that I objected last year. Hi Robert, I'm still sympathetic to that goal, specifically the idea that where an OS or other platform supports a DRM framework with a public API, then there should be a public specification allowing people to fill the gap between the EME API and that platform API. And I think that where there is a DRM framework built in to an OS or other platform, then the APIs to that should be public. But I am not sure what we can do in the W3C process or specification to cause or even require that. …Mark Rob -- Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” [Matthew 20:25-28]
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 22:49:07 UTC