Re: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD) from Leif Halvard Silli on 2013-06-01 (public-html-admin@w3.org from June 2013)

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 11:43:35 +0200
To: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Cc: Casey Callaghan <caseyc37@gmail.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, public-html-media@w3.org, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Message-ID: <20130601114335843093.1c2e960e@xn--mlform-iua.no>

Steve Faulkner, Fri, 31 May 2013 15:40:38 +0100:
> a correction
> 
> "EME can be a
> standard on its own, separated from and not required for the
> implementation of standards-compliant HTML."
> 
> This is the case for the current EME proposal, it is not a requirement for
> HTML, it is a separate spec. I don't know of any move to include in the
> core HTML spec and would imagine that such a move would not get consensus.

I think the above is a bit too square since HTML5 has the concept of 
applicable spec. It would only take a sentence or two to include EME by 
reference.

Leif H Silli

Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 09:44:10 UTC