Robert, I agree with your objectives and personally would support them but I don't support the objection as I don't believe that advancement to FPWD should be a time for people to demand resolution on particular issues. LC or CR sure, but not on FPWD. It's a procedural thing for me. -Ian On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>wrote: > >> We can either sit in our admittedly morally-comfortable sandbox as we >> watch our relevance fade (either because the web loses to a more capable >> native platform, or because this work and implementation proceed outside of >> W3C), or we can hold our noses a bit and try to ensure that if this is >> something we have to do, we at least do it in the best way possible. We can >> ensure that as much as possible is interoperable. > > > Do you support my objection, then? > > The current EME draft and the untrammeled CDM ecosystem it enables is very > far from "ensuring that as much as possible is interoperable". > > 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 Tuesday, 29 January 2013 22:38:24 UTC