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

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

From: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 15:40:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CA+ri+Vno+t+dfq7H96RJXR_XSCRzGc3QeAksChGjtR-onDB9Kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Casey Callaghan <caseyc37@gmail.com>
Cc: 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
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.


--

Regards

SteveF
HTML 5.1 <http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/>


On 31 May 2013 14:55, Casey Callaghan <caseyc37@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mr. Foliot
>
> I believe that your earlier non-technical post has been incorrect on a
> number of important points.
>
> On 30/05/2013, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
> > <non-technical post, with apologies>
> >
> > Andreas, GaŽl, Florian,
> >
> > Just so that I have a clear understanding of what you are suggesting
> here:
> >
> > You, and the EFF, under the banner of "Freedom" and "Openness" are in
> fact
> > attempting to BLOCK, to STOP COLD, a number of software partners from
> > working - in the Open and under public scrutiny - on a technical
> > specification at the W3C that can be used on the Web Platform. Never mind
> > that this effort is being contributed freely, and it's trajectory path
> for
> > Final Recommendation includes milestones such as community input and
> > comment
> > on its *technical* merits, an accessibility review by the PFWG, and a
> > published call for Patent claims prior to standardization.
> >
> > Your stated reasoning appears to be that if you are "successful" you will
> > have somehow stopped Digital Rights Management from being used on the
> web,
> > or being supported by commercial browsers developed by privately held
> > commercial companies today. The Web "MUST REMAIN FREE!!!" you rally. As
> an
> > analogy, I see this as akin to stating that you support freedom of
> religion
> > as long as that religion is based upon a form of Christianity - anyone
> who
> > deviates from that myopic perspective is "wrong", misguided, or simply
> > "greedy".
>
> The proposal to remove EME from the HTML standard does not prevent
> DRM. Any browser that so wishes can still implement EME; EME can be a
> standard on its own, separated from and not required for the
> implementation of standards-compliant HTML.
>
> As an analogy, putting EME into HTML is akin to insisting that every
> place of worship should include a large and prominent crucifix.
>
> > In *my* Open Web, any group that produces a specification and then
> releases
> > it to be used by others without any patent encumbrance is contributing to
> > the Open Web Stack. And funny enough, that seems to be how the web works
> > today.
>
> Surely that depends on the standard? If I write up a standard
> insisting that all webpages should be displayed with, say, a
> particularly nauseating puce background, bright purple text, and a
> pattern of dancing cupcakes down the left side... then that would
> hardly be an improvement, even if I were to release it without patent
> encumbrances.
>
> To *improve* the Open Web, a standard surely needs to pass the fairly
> minimal bar of being good for the users of the Open Web if
> implemented.
>
> > My question to you then is this: what happens if you *are* successful in
> > stopping this effort at the W3C? Do you think that those who require this
> > technology will simply pack up their tents and go home, accepting
> "defeat"?
>
> What I think will happen, is that they will implement this technology
> in some other way. Quite probably, via proprietary browser plug-ins.
>
> And that would be the right and appropriate place for such technology.
> Those that wish to use it, can use it; and those that wish to avoid
> it, can avoid it while remaining standards-compliant. This seems to me
> the sensible solution.
>
> On the other hand - what happens if the EME proposal is included in
> the HTML standard? Then, there are a number of people who will
> disapprove of it (starting with the EFF, to name one vocal group).
> These people include sufficient competent programmers that there will
> very likely soon be a browser that implements all elements of HTML5
> except the EME. (Depending on the final form of the EME, it may even
> be that all FOSS browsers are prevented from implementing it). This
> leads to fragmentation of the standard; which is an outcome that I
> feel should be avoided.
>
> Casey
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 14:41:50 UTC

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