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

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

From: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
Date: 13 May 2013 12:11:32 +0200
Message-ID: <5190BC54.4050402@ping.de>
To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org
Sam Ruby:
> The purpose of a First Public Working Draft is to seek wider review[1]
> and to start the clock on requiring disclosure of essential patent
> claims[2].
> Unless your objections are to either of these two occurring, I'd suggest
> focusing near term on Jeff's suggestions[3], and longer term on Last
> Call[4] as ordinarily that would be when such Formal Objections are
> forwarded on for consideration.

I have read the posing by Jeff and am considering an appropriate
response to that self-contradictory text.

I will not go into detail here but just point out that his statement "A
situation where premium content is relegated to applications
inaccessible to the Open Web or completely locked down devices would be
far worse for all" is already fulfilled by the first known
implementation of the unpublished EME draft.

A "wider review" of EME can not improve it in a way which makes it
compatible with the Open Web. The main result of such a "wider review"
would be more alienation between the Open Web communities and the W3C -
and providing a basis for a small number of companies to continue
claiming that they implement DRM using a W3C specification,

Received on Monday, 13 May 2013 10:11:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:23 UTC