- From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 02:32:35 +0000
- To: Wayne Borean <wborean@gmail.com>
- CC: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <AB5704B0EEC35B4691114DC04366B37F243081AD@TK5EX14MBXC296.redmond.corp.microsoft.>
> If EME is not compatible with the WIPO Internet Treaties, which from what I can see it is not Can you explain exactly why EME is not compatible with the WIPO Internet Treaties [1], why that is a problem and what would have to be changed to avoid the problem you hypothesize exists? /paulc HTML WG co-chair [1] http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/activities/wct_wppt/wct_wppt.html Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329 From: Wayne Borean [mailto:wborean@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 PM To: public-html-media@w3.org Cc: public-html-media@w3.org Subject: Possible Bug - is EME WIPO 1995 Compatible or not? Mark, If EME is not compatible with the WIPO Internet Treaties, which from what I can see it is not, then it is a bug which needs to be fixed. Sorry about dropping it into an existing thread, my screw up, now fixed. So, am I missing something and is it compatible? I'll admit that I'm more comfortable with Fortran and Basic, I'm one of the antiques who learned programming using punch cards before Apple or Microsoft existed. Wayne On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com<mailto:watsonm@netflix.com>> wrote: Sent from my iPhone On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:35 AM, Wayne Borean <wborean@gmail.com<mailto:wborean@gmail.com>> wrote: Hmm. You do realize that EME is not compatible with the WIPO Internet Treaties? Is your comment related to the thread in which you posted it (which is about MSE not EME) ? Can you explain further ? ...Mark While a private firm like Microsoft or Apple could (and do) build software which isn't WIPO-1995 compliant, making a Web Standard that isn't WIPO-1995 compliant would be a huge mistake. Wayne On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:02 PM, <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org<mailto:bugzilla@jessica.w3..org>> wrote: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22329 Bug ID: 22329 Summary: [MSE] TextTrack attributes settable in conflict with the html spec Classification: Unclassified Product: HTML WG Version: unspecified Hardware: PC OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: Media Source Extensions Assignee: adrianba@microsoft.com<mailto:adrianba@microsoft.com> Reporter: giles@mozilla.com<mailto:giles@mozilla.com> QA Contact: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org<mailto:public-html-bugzilla@w3.org> CC: mike@w3.org<mailto:mike@w3.org>, public-html-media@w3.org<mailto:public-html-media@w3.org> "partial interface TextTrack { attribute DOMString kind; attribute DOMString language; }" The TextTrack interface in the html spec has readonly attributes of the same name. I think the idea is to use specific constructors as the only way to pass these in, or have them created by the parser for in-band text tracks and <track> elements. Do we need this interface? If it's muxed with the parent media element's source stream, the in-band text track support should cover it, and if it's external, the media.AddTextTrack and TextTrack.addCue methods should be sufficient to implement dynamic subtitles with minimal complexity. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Friday, 14 June 2013 02:33:07 UTC