W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > January 2013

Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 17:24:49 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLY4wuWGtzPXAMxPCtn58=0rdcLrEnkQ4DhSPS1ZUMF0JA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> (ddorwin@google.com)" <ddorwin@google.com>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

> I've a suspicion that making it a hard requirement is more likely to cause
> the registry to remain empty than to influence the DRM vendors to
> publishing the information. It's the DRM vendors that you need to convince.

If no DRM vendor wants to make that sort of commitment to interoperability,
I think it would be helpful for the Web standards community to know that. I
think that information would inform the discussion of whether the W3C
should support EME.

There's also a bit of a definitional problem: what about DRM components
> that just ship as part of an application ? How do you define the
> requirements for them to be included in such a registry ? Wouldn't it seem
> unfair if one product that ships to free everyone in some platform or OS
> (and so is widely available) has to jump through certain hoops that another
> that application developers have to pay to integrate doesn't ? Wouldn't
> that actually discourage freely shipping such platform components ?

I think we could place these requirements on "products that application
developers have to pay to integrate" too.

Still, I expect that the interop phase of this standard - if it goes ahead
> - will be much easier if the specifications and APIs mentioned above exist
> and so I very much encourage their publication.

Good. I just don't think EME should proceed until we have something here.

I know that you (Netflix) are not a DRM vendor. That is exactly why I
object to EME being used as a whitewashing device that frees DRM vendors
from having to participate in the standards process in any way.

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 Monday, 28 January 2013 04:25:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:21 UTC