On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:38 AM, Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > You seem overly fond of sweeping generalizations like: - nobody can extend - cannot be independently implemented - no path to an implementation Why do I get the strong sense that you haven't tried doing any of these things? Also, why do you keep using the term "HTML-DRM" when you know very well that there is no such a thing?
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 16:56:37 UTC