On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > >> I am actually saying exactly the opposite. I should have said "You can >> certainly implement EME and a CDM ..." above. >> > > I disagree with that assessment on three counts: > > 1) I cannot implement Widevine to deliver content to Chromebooks, so this > is no path to satisfy the success criteria set forth by the HTML-WG charter > 2) I cannot implement a CDM and have Chromebooks support it, so this is > also no path to satisfy the success criteria. > 3) I cannot implement a CDM compatible with the HTML-WG charter that would > be deemed useful by the content industry, so that is also no path to > satisfy the success criteria. > If any of these are true, it is because you have CHOSEN to not implement. It is is not because it is not possible. Others will implement. There is no requirement for the W3C (or any other specification/standards development organization I'm aware of) to limit its work to specifications that everyone both can and will choose to implement or use. Which means there is no path to an implementation of HTML-DRM in its > entirety that would be both feasible and compatible with the HTML-WG > charter. > Oh? Can you cite language from the charter that makes this work infeasible or incompatible?
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 16:24:22 UTC