[Bug 23341] The extension should not require special (handcuffed) hardware.

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23341

--- Comment #6 from Julio Cesar Serrano <mhysterio@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Mark Watson from comment #5)
> Ok, I have no problem with that statement. However the specification doesn't
> mandate the use of software content protection schemes either.
> 
> And I think, rather than use the words 'mandate the use of' - because the
> specification doesn't 'mandate' anyone to 'use' anything - we should say
> whether compliance to the specification requires X, Y, Z. With this wording
> we could say
> 
> 'This specification supports both software and hardware content protection
> schemes but does not require either for compliance.'

Sorry, but I think that sentence is too open. What I want to express is... that
no application should force or encourage people to install new hardware for
improved protection in order to access the content. But if such hardware is
already present in the user computer, then and only then it is Ok to use it.

Please, may you word the appropriate sentence?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 23:29:28 UTC