- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 18:01:57 -0600
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.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>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cbQOHyugkeUp5ut+igkJnjCK6c_DVFBTXuUGGnqvaMzQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote: > IIUC the proposed alternative resolution is in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Jan/0208.html . > I would be interested to know how a W3C specification could require an implementer of an implementation detail of EME (i.e., a CDM) to register it, or to put it another way, how could the W3C enforce such a requirement even if it were written into the spec? The only type of registry I see as practically implementable would be strictly voluntary and have a primary purpose of collision avoidance among key system names. > 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 ;-). > > Cheers, > Silvia. > 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 Thursday, 8 August 2013 00:02:45 UTC