Re: how does EME/DRM effect captioning

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
> > The W3C should not ignore real word use cases. And delivery via MPEG-2
> is a
> > real-world use case.
>
> Delivery via MPEG-2 is not a use case. It's a potential solution for
> addressing a use case.
>

No. It's a use case based on the fact that the greatest part (>99%?) of
broadcast video and DVD video is using MPEG-2.


>
> Which browsers currently implement MPEG-2 without DRM in HTML5 video?
>

Hmm, let's see, there are Samsung Smart TVs, LG TVs, Sony TVs, .... I'm not
sure where the list stops.


> Which one intend to? What about with DRM?
>

You are asking me to declare the intentions of HTML5 enabled TV
Manufacturers? Feel free to contact them directly and let us know the
results of your research.


> Which content providers currently serve MPEG-2 in an HTML5-based
> player?


Every commercial video service provider I am familiar with.


> Which ones intend to? What about with DRM?


A better question would be whether and when they intend to use something
other than MPEG-2?


> To address what use
> cases? Why with a codec that needs more bandwidth than either H.264 or
> VP8 and that comes with a less favorable licensing regime?
>

There is something called legacy systems.


> > Currently shipping EME prototypes have no necessary bearing on what is
> > eventually required or shipped.
>
> To the extend video services target EME on Chrome OS, indications of
> requirements can be inferred.


Requirements yes. Specifics no. An existing requirement by commercial video
providers is to use MPEG-2 if possible, and if not possible, then other
codecs can be considered, including those you have mentioned.