W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > April 2013

Re: Chromebook DRM specification

From: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:02:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAEnTvdB-V8AwtK0y4NxgQxuEDZcbzMvw7NbtEZxQAJQQ34cJag@mail.gmail.com>
To: Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>
Cc: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Mays, David" <David_Mays@comcast.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>, "Philippe Le Hegaret (plh@w3.org)" <plh@w3.org>, "Michael(tm) Smith (mike@w3.org)" <mike@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
>> The server side yes, but the server side is not the subject of this
>> specification. It's necessary to implement a Silverlight compiler to
>> deliver content to Silverlight, or an H.264 encoded to deliver content to a
>> device that only supports H.264, but these things do not mean that <object>
>> or <video> are not in scope of the HTML charter.
> The non standardization of video/audio codecs has historically been
> contested leading to today where no single codec can be used across
> implementations. The <object> specification is content agnostic and does
> not concern itself with specifica of the implementations of either
> silverlight or flash, while the HTML-DRM specification does. Regardless a
> retirement of the <object> in favor of standardized approaches is lauded
> from all sides, even from the providers of such content.

Well, exactly. That is what we are trying to do here.

> Websockets, HTTP, TLS etc. are specified by the IETF, is it in the charter
> of the IETF to specify the HTML-DRM protocol?
>> How is the current capabilities of a single device relevant to the status
>> of the specification ?
> Because it is the first use-case, and hurdle, to overcome to measure the
> success of the specification. A success criteria which I consider failed
> thus far.
>> You are more than welcome to propose a DRM solution that is available
>> Royalty-Free. Indeed, such a thing would be very welcome. I don't know of
>> one. If I did I would certainly propose it.
>> You can certainly implement EME in a fully RF Open Source way - it just
>> might not meet the requirements of all content providers. Similarly, you
>> can implement WebGL fully in software, but it won't meet the requirements
>> of all content - for that you need proprietary hardware (for performance).
> So you agree that HTML-DRM is not implementable in a fashion compatible
> with the HTML-WG charter, while retaining its usefulness to the usecase it
> should satisfy.

I am actually saying exactly the opposite. I should have said "You can
certainly implement EME and a CDM ..." above.

Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 16:02:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:48:35 UTC