Re: CfC: to publish two revised heartbeat Working Drafts

I feel offended by some of your statements.

El 25/09/13 02:30, John Foliot escribió:
> Paul Cotton wrote:
>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) to the Media Task Force to publish as a
>> heartbeat Working Draft the following “Encrypted Media Extensions”
>> specification:
>> encrypted-media-wd.html
>> Silence will be taken to mean there is no objection, but positive
> responses
>> are encouraged.
> I support the publication of this heartbeat Working Draft.
Is this what you call "positive response"? Your support was pretty clear
even without that line.
> *************
> Meanwhile,
> Fred Andrews wrote:
>> The director of the W3C has still not responded to the objections raised
>> to the EME and thus I believe it is completely inappropriate to be
> publicly
>> advancing this version of the EME specification.
> I believe you need to do some fact-checking. 
> In February 2013, Philippe Le Hegaret wrote:
> "...the HTML Chairs asked the W3C Team to provide clarifications, which I
> provide below. - The HTML Working Group is chartered to provide "APIs for
> the
> manipulation of linked media" [2]. As such, API extensions to the
> HTMLMediaElement interface are in scope for the HTML Working
> Group. This includes work items like the Media Source Extensions,
> already published as a First Public Working Group, or the Encrypted
> Media Extensions."
> That note was signed
> Philippe,
> for the W3C Team
> (which includes the Director, Tim Berners-Lee)
> Thus the Director did in fact rule work on EME in-scope for this working
> group, and any Formal Objection lodged against any Recommendation work at
> the W3C is and will be addressed by the Director later in the approval
> timeline (per W3C Process
What is the point of showing advance now if we didn't reached consensus?
Call For Consensus was issued but the consensus wasn't reached. Should we
accept it until the approval timeline? It's absurd.
>  -
> Since this is a call for a heartbeat publication, now is not that time. 
>> It is certainly not the wishes of the vast majority of the open web
>> community,
> According to whom? While it is clear that some vocal members of the Open
> Software community have objections, it is less clear whether their
> objections are "the majority" or rather the very loud protestations by a
> small but vocal minority. I certainly welcome proof of your assertion
> however: data, numbers, how those numbers were compiled, etc. It is easy to
> wave your hand and say "the vast majority" - I say prove it.
The majority of the open web community doesn't even know about EME
If they knew, I'm sure you'd had noticed. That's why just a handful
people is here
trying to make EME not too bad. Anyway you shouldn't mention that, because
compared to web users the companies who pursue this business model are a
So why should we modify the open web just for a minority?
>> nor the work of the open web community, and attempting
>> to pass it off as such will cause signification damage.
> To whom? And can you please provide a detailed explanation as to what kind
> of damage you are concerned about? "Bad things" is hardly a technical
> description that can be addressed in a technical specification.
It's clear that CDM is going to be propietary software. Propietary
software is secret and
having secret code on a computer gives a lot of power to the programmer
(in this case
the companies). No one can be trusted to have such power. Then, allowing
CDM on
every browser is certainly a danger. If the W3C finally approves EME,
that will make people
to loss confidence in the W3C and that will end most probably causing
damage to the web.

That is just one example. Many more considerations may be made.

> >From my perspective, all of the work around EME has been open, public and
> transparent, even if at its core it involves, as part of its deliverable, a
> potential (non-mandatory) closed security box.  However, the EME API is and
> remains an open piece of the larger web platform. It is also worth repeating
> (again!) that this proposed non-proprietary API would work equally well with
> proprietary CDMs as with non-proprietary content protection schemes that
> could be implemented in and by open source software.
What about free software? Do you think current EME model is acceptable
to the
free software community? Open source is not equal to free software. Open
source software doesn't take into acount ethical issues nor user freedom.

Perhaps do you pretend to free software extinction? Free software community
is everyday larger and you can be sure they are against EME as it is now
so here
you have part of that open web community you were missing before.

>> Please withdraw the publication of the specification immediately to
>> avoid causing irreparable damage to the open web community.
> What damage is being caused? It strikes me that the only real potential
> damage being caused is by a small and vocal group of critics who refuse to
> accept the business requirements that EME is seeking to address. In their
> zealous attempts to enforce *their* limited vision of how the web should be,
> they are, by their very actions, attempting to further fracture the web
> ecosystem by driving away legitimate business participants, forcing them to
> create, (what?) a forked version of HTML? The "Open Web Zealots" version and
> the "Real World" version? It is as much you and yours sir that is causing
> damage, by seeking to  refuse to allow legitimate participants to also be
> part of the web, simply because they do not share the same business model as
> you. 
>> This select and narrow group is welcome to do as it wish in the back
>> rooms, but this work should not be surfacing here.
> Why yes, back-room forking of the web is so much preferable than having an
> open, common (if imperfect) version of the web! How silly of us all. Bring
> on the Warner-Web, and the SonyPictures-Web, and the Microsoft-Web, and the
> Adobe-Web, and the EFF-Web, and the Netflix-Web, and the Google-Web, and the
> BBC-Web, and the TurnerBroadcasting-Web - that will be so much more "open"
> and useful won't it?

One can always avoid the use of such parts of the web. So the rest of
the web
would remain still OPEN and FREE (as in freedom).

>> Paul, a Chair of the HTML grouping group should know better.  You do
>> not have the confidence of the open web community.  Could you please
>> resign and move on.
> I'm not sure how one qualifies to a member of "the open web community", but
> as a member of the free web community I personally have a lot of confidence
> in the W3C, and specifically in Mr. Cotton, who has proven to me numerous
> times his steady hand, fair and balanced approach, and flawless diplomatic
> handling of personal attacks against himself and other members of the HTML
> WG Chairs.  Perhaps it is you Mr. Andrews who should move along, as you are
> not providing any technical feedback here, but instead nothing but personal
> opinion and stale hyperbole that has been well tread in the past.
>> cheers,
>> Fred
> Nothing cheery about your attack Fred. Your (and others') constant repeating
> of your concerns is doing nothing to advance the work of the W3C. The W3C
> has repeatedly asked for alternatives to the current API work that would
> address both your concerns and the business requirements of those behind the
> EME work. We've heard plenty of moaning and complaining, but little in the
> way of real alternative proposals.  Jamming the W3C mailing lists with
> emails ripe with indignation, decrying the evils of Content Protection and
> the "harm" to the open web is not engineering, it is sloganeering and has no
> place here.
> JF 

If EME has to exists on the web... let's do it human and caring not just
for money.
We are humans. Users are humans. Most users are not aware of technical
I think there may be a way for honestly earning money and still be humans.
I'll work for that.
Best regards

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 01:26:34 UTC