- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 18:19:51 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25434 --- Comment #12 from Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> --- (In reply to Mark Watson from comment #10) > Although I do not agree with everything in the draft TAG opinion on EME [1], > they do say: > > "Although CDMs are necessarily underspecified for robustness reasons, this > should not be used as a loophole to drive through vendor-specific behavior. > Out-of-band communication (via the CDM or otherwise) should not be possible, > nor should vendor-specific extensions or extension points be blessed into > the spec." > > Direct CDM <-> license server communication goes directly against this > recommendation. I can accept a scenario where CDM communication is mediated by the UA, but the TAG opinion piece seems to want to prohibit that as well "... or otherwise". The new language in EME seems to offer the possibility of some degree of UA mediated communication. This is something I would like to see preserved, and not legislated away. > [1] https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/blob/master/2014/10/eme.md -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 18:19:53 UTC