RE: Possible Bug - is EME WIPO 1995 Compatible or not?

> 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.