- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 21:33:01 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=24025 --- Comment #5 from David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com> --- Mark did a good job addressing most of the questions (thanks!). A few more comments below. (In reply to Henri Sivonen from comment #3) > (In reply to David Dorwin from comment #0) > > robustness options, > > Do you envision these to be Key System-specific or do you envision > standardizing a cross-Key System robustness taxonomy. AFAICT, EME has tried > to avoid the latter, but you say "We should enable/encourage use of > consistent configuration values across key systems." I meant the name of such configuration items. For simple items (e.g. offline), the values can also be standardized, but you're right that it seems unlikely that robustness values could be standardized, at least in the short term. The format of certificates and other values might also differ. > > > offline, > > What kind of offline cases do you have in mind? Think of it more as taking a streaming service/app on an airplane, etc. The user has made the same agreement with the service provider, but now they don't need a high bandwidth connection at the time the content is actually viewed. The user can use different browsers/CDMs or the browser can transition CDMs (assuming the service supports the new CDM, which EME tries to make as easy as possible), but the app will need to acquire a license for the new CDM. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 21:33:03 UTC