- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:34:21 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25092 --- Comment #24 from Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> --- Discussion on www-style concluded [1] that media queries was not the right way to handle the resolution restrictions arising from downscaling. There already exist tools which can be used to determine physical display resolution and thus influence bitrate choice on that basis. For the dynamic, content-related, case of HDPC-driven downscaling, we should define something EME-specific. My original suggestion was to define an event specifically for this case of resolution restrictions. There are two subcases depending on whether downscaling is supported: (a) resolution restricted and downscaling supported (playback continues) (b) resolution restricted and downscaling not supported (playback stops) We also have the alternative of requiring that different policies be associated with different key ids (fake ones if necessary) and indicating the status with respect to each policy through the usable key ids mechanism. Thus, there would be a key id associated with the policy that 'requires HDCP x.y for resolution z'. That key id would be marked as unusable to indicate that resolution z cannot be supported. Whether there is downscaling or the playback is stopped might be indicated by a key status or just by the fact of whether playback is continuing or not. This alternative could work, but it seems rather complex and the fake key ids seem awkward. I also do not like the application responsibility for the linkage between fake key id and policy: it does not seem that this could be done in a keysystem-independent way (some keysystems may support applications specifying the 'fake key id <-> policy' correspondance at the server side, but others might have it hard-coded into the CDM). To address this - since resolution restriction is IIUC the only example of a restriction leading to a desire to switch streams - I wonder if we should expose the resolution restriction explicitly with the key status ? [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2014Nov/0373.html -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 16 December 2014 17:34:23 UTC