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

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> So, you want to insist on a higher bar for CDMs than other modularizable
> components? For example, there are no similar requirements for things like:
>
>    - uri scheme/url protocol handlers
>    - image decoders
>    - video decoders
>    - audio decoders
>    - font decoders
>
>
I do expect URIs, image, media and font formats used on the Web to be fully
specified somewhere, and that is standard practice today.


>    - input method editors
>    - geolocation devices
>
>
These do not affect interop.


>    - media stream processors
>
>
This is a straw man that I have already debunked.



> While it is reasonable to define a voluntary registry, it is not
> reasonable to require registration or to require that documentation be
> fully open. Who would enforce this even if it were defined?
>

Whoever maintains the registry.

It is reasonable for particular UA vendors to impose their own business
> requirements on integrable components. It is not reasonable to dictate that
> all UAs follow the same policy.
>

It is reasonable for the W3C to impose requirements on its own
specifications in order to maximise interoperability. Vendors who don't
like are not required to participate.

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]