W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2011

[Bug 13333] audio, video (and source) elements require param children or equivalent

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 04:24:50 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Qlvfu-0007Zl-Nb@jessica.w3.org>

--- Comment #24 from Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> 2011-07-27 04:24:49 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> (In reply to comment #21)
> > 
> > I am talking about User Agents that implement the HTML5 specification in a
> > cross-UA-compatible way as defined by the W3C. Are you are talking about an
> > application that supports the HTML5 specification and other extra
> > specifications? That then goes beyond being a HTML5 UA and would not be
> > compatible with HTML5 UAs for that extra functionality (unless used with
> > plugins). This is be a move towards proprietary extensions that only work in
> > specific browsers and thus doesn't help to retain the Web as an interoperable
> > platform. Why not add such specifications directly to HTML5 and bring it to  > the whole Web?
> I now believe that Glenn is suggesting that <param> could/would serve that
> purpose, and we have a hint that "...at least one implementor is ready to add
> DRM support."
> If this bug (#10902) needs to be re-opened it must happen this week.

I would not advocate re-opening 10902. In fact, I advocate taking NO action
regarding standardization of DRM parameters (at least in the HTML5 context).
What I am pointing out in this bug report is the need for a generic param
mechanism by means of which arbitrary parameters (including DRM parameters) may
be specified by the content author and targeted to the UA implementation (for
arbitrary purposes), (possibly but not necessarily) subject to future
standardization inside or outside the W3C.

Regarding actual implementations of DRM support in browsers, there is more than
one browser that supports DRM of video/audio content, and which AT THE CURRENT
TIME makes use of the param child on object to communicate DRM parameters. So I
am not speculating about the future, but describing existing, deployed

Further, to reiterate, I am not distinguishing between a UA implementation and
plug-in implementations. A browser is a combination of the two, and the
dividing line is arbitrary and implementation specific. Consequently, any
argument that param is targeted to plug-ins is not relevant from an
implementation perspective. The authors of param need not know how a browser
implements support for a given video/audio media type, since that partition is
opaque. Browser A may implement support for video media type V as a built-in
component, while Browser B may implement via a plug-in mechanism.


Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2011 04:24:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:56 UTC