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

> 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?

For an example of an HTML5 registry see http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/single-page.html#other-metadata-names


/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329

From: Glenn Adams [mailto:glenn@skynav.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 8:02 PM
To: Silvia Pfeiffer
Cc: <public-html-media@w3.org>; Adrian Bateman; Paul Cotton; Robert O'Callahan
Subject: Re: {minutes} HTML WG media telecon 2013-08-06 - EME status and bug discussion


On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:38 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org<mailto:robert@ocallahan.org>> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 3:55 AM, Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com<mailto: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