- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:03:05 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20960 --- Comment #9 from Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> --- (In reply to comment #8) > > > and if a CDM can support DRM then there would be demand for more > > general HTML support within the CDM - I suggest it's inevitable that a CDM > > would be written that supports a relative comprehensive HTML engine. > > I don't agree with this. > > The described threat would require the UA to include a CDM with this > behavior. There is no requirement that any UA include any specific CDM other > than ClearKey (which does not have this behavior). A much shorter path to > this scenario is that the UA provides a direct non-standard method to turn > on "DRM" for the web page and does not include an entire alternate HTML > engine. Both scenarios require collusion by the UA implementer and both rely > on behavior outside of the specification. An even simpler way would be for the UA to implement a generic plugin API allowing the user to install (deliberately, or as the result of social engineering) arbitrary code that integrates into the web page. Such a plugin could implement an entirely independent HTML-equivalent presentation engine, complete with DRM protection, if it so chose. Since such a plugin API already exists in all browsers, it would be an improvement if the use-cases that cause browsers to maintain support for it could be supported in a way where the DRM code and what it can do is more under the control of the UA implementor. This is one of our goals. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 18:03:15 UTC