Re: Chromebook DRM specification

On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:

> We are defining an extension point that is in some way like <object> but
> with greatly restricted functionality and with the expectation that
> browsers control and curate the extensions they support. These extensions
> may implement DRM, but we are not proposing to standardize a complete DRM
> solution.
>
You are defining an extension point, that nobody can extend because the
extension activation is selective (by UA vendor), and the only example of
an extension in the wild is not independently implementable (Widevine)
which incidentially belongs to Google, who is also promoting the
standardization effort, to what amounts in practise to a licensing scheme
for their own pockets. It should be self evident that this is isn't going
to foster compatibility going forward once other players start doing the
same.