- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:39:16 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23341 --- Comment #7 from Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> --- (In reply to Julio Cesar Serrano from comment #6) > (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? That's difficult, because you are asking for a requirement on applications and it is not applications that implement the EME specification it's browsers. It's hard for W3C specifications to place requirements on applications that use the web platform except by requiring browsers to police application behavior. We could say that UAs should not rely exclusively on optional hardware components for their implementation of EME CDMs. This is a recommendation to UA implementors, but it does not constrain applications. We could even say (though I doubt the UA implementors would agree) that UAs must do some policing to ensure that a version of any given content item is available in a form suitable for playback entirely in software before that UA would allow the same content item to be played back (possibly at higher quality) through a hardware solution. I hope you'll agree that it's difficult to imagine what that policing could be in practice. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2013 23:39:18 UTC