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

Re: {minutes} HTML WG media telecon 2013-08-06 - EME status and bug discussion

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 09:38:33 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kg9tsF5J4ypbFGs0TD9RUOSQpaCappZR=H+EbO5bo=vQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: "<public-html-media@w3.org>" <public-html-media@w3.org>, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
IIUC the proposed alternative resolution is in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jan/0208.html .

I would be interested to hear from those who have implementation experience
with encryption stacks whether that proposal can be made to work, I.e. how
much knowledge about the encryption tech did you need to implement support
for it in the browser (yes, I am looking at Google and Netflix ;-).

On 8 Aug 2013 09:33, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>wrote:
>>>    glenn: there were a couple of comments since the last meeting
>>>    ... i proposed a way to resolve this bug
>>>    ... Robert O'Callahan responded that it wasn't as strong as he
>>>    desired
>>>    ... i responded that he'd have to convince the group of his
>>>    proposal
>>>    ... he's requesting a fairly strong set of information about
>>>    CDM
>>>    ... i'm recommending a voluntary registry in the wiki
>>>    adrianba: i'd be okay with the wiki proposal
>>>    glenn: does anyone support robert's proposal?
>>>    ... does anyone think we should keep it open for longer?
>> So far as I can tell, the only rationale being presented for rejecting my
>> proposal is "no-one in the telecon supports it", which is vacuous.
> I would not say it is vacuous since it represents the opinion of the TF,
> or at least those present. Neither MarkW or IanF were present.
>> Surely there should be some actual rationale that addresses the proposal
>> on its merits?
> No decision was taken on the bug. I accepted Actions 32 [1] and 33 [2] to
> create a voluntary registry for key systems on the HTML WG Wiki and to
> create spec text for an informative note pointing at this registry from the
> EME spec.
> If you would like to propose an alternative resolution including explicit
> spec language, then please do so in order for the TF to consider the
> alternative proposed resolutions.
> [1] https://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/32
> [2] https://www.w3.org/html/wg/media/track/actions/33
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2013 23:39:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:48:40 UTC