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

On Sep 24, 2013, at 21:50 , "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.  

It may be against some vague principle you hold, but please don't attribute your rather amorphous opinions to everyone else.

I, and others, have detailed the concerns we have with EME, and struggled with finding a better solution.  I encourage you to move from standing on the sidelines and decrying others best attempts to wrestling with the issues, to joining in actually wrestling with them.

> 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.

The only 'arguments' we seem to be hearing is "I don't like it, it's contrary to my principles".  This is not an argument anyone can work with.

> (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.)


I am disappointed that you resort to name-calling.  It should be, and is, beneath you.

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2013 05:38:21 UTC