Re: CfC: to publish a “Encrypted Media Exstensions" hearbeat Working Draft

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> Same objection I've given every time.  Despite the W3C leadership
> signing off on this, it's still grossly inappropriate for us to be
> doing this, as it goes directly against the basic principles of the
> Open Web we claim to stand for.  All the relevant arguments have
> already been made, so I won't re-make them - they simply keep getting
> ignored, rather than addressed, so they're just as valid now as they
> were when they were first made.
>
> (If anyone feels the urge to claim that this is totally in line with
> the Open Web and really *I'm* the one being against the Open Web
> because I'm restricting consumer's right to choose to consume broken
> media, go for it.  I won't be responding, because it's stupid.)
>

Suffice it to say that there is not a general consensus on (1) what is
meant by "the Open Web", or (2) whether EME contributes or detracts from
some definition of "the Open Web".

I find it interesting to note that during today's BlinkOn 1.0 meeting (of
Blink contributors), that the number one item cited as a point of
comparison, i.e., for what Blink (and other OW platforms) is competing
against, was framed as "the Open Web" versus "Native Applications". One of
the primary use cases cited for EME is to provide a mechanism to enhance
competition with "Native Applications" in offering access to protected
content.

If support for EME is support for Open Web parity (on some level) with
Native Apps, and opposition to EME is support for Native Apps against the
Open Web, then I will vote for Open Web *with* EME. Open means open for all
uses, not just uses that you prefer. Open includes the protected content
business model just like it includes businesses conducting safe business
with HTTPS/TLS... well, at least excluding NSA eavesdropping ;).


>
> ~TJ
>
>