- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 09:35:21 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13333 --- Comment #32 from Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> 2011-07-28 09:35:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #0) > <audio> > <source src="audio.mp3"> > <param name="dlna-res-protocolInfo" value="rtsp-rtp-udp:*:audio/mpeg:*"> > </source> > <source src="audio.mp3"> > <param name="dlna-res-protocolInfo" > value="http-get:*:audio/mpeg:DLNA.ORG_PN=MP3"> > </source> > </audio> Why isn't this written as <audio> <source src="rtsp://something/audio.mp3"> <source src="http://something/audio.mp3"> </audio> ? (In reply to comment #28) > (In reply to comment #26) > > (In reply to comment #24) > > > 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. > > > > What browsers are those? > > I am referring to browsers currently deployed on Televisions, Set-Top Boxes, > and Mobile Devices, particularly those that participate in the playback and > sharing of DRM controlled video or audio content. There are a variety of > standards/specifications that apply to such devices, such as those defined by > DLNA and other industry associations. I meant the names of the browsers. Why does your DRM scheme require parameters to be supplied alongside the DRM-obfuscated file? That is, why isn't it sufficient to treat the DRM wrapper as a special kind of file format? Like this: <audio> <source src="audio.drm" type="audio/industry-association-drm-wrapper"> </audio> Anyway HTML5 is trying to be a spec for the Web--a royalty-free system where multiple vendors can implement clients without asking permission from a DRM proprietor. While it's possible to reuse Web specs in closed systems, I think we shouldn't design HTML5 for closed systems, since that's a distraction that takes attention and focus away from making the Web better. That is, I think we shouldn't spend time adding closed system-motivated features. More concretely, I don't want to disrupt the parsing of <source> (a void element--for better or worse--in shipped Web browsers) in order to cater to closed-system use cases. -- 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 Thursday, 28 July 2011 09:35:31 UTC