RE: [Bug 20944] New: EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop

I think it is obvious what I mean.  That I can take the specification ALONE,
sit down at my computer, and write software that implements this
specification, and expect it to work.

I expect that this standards setting forum has a similar definition to me,
but I am open to being shown otherwise, in which case it would be
you who needs to take care that your language does not mislead.

cheers
Fred


From: glenn@skynav.com
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 16:21:33 -0700
To: fredandw@live.com
CC: public-html-media@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 20944] New: EME should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop


On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:





> I think you are assuming that 'independently implemented' implies
> 'does not contain non-user modifiable components'.

'Independently implementable' means that all components can be
independently implemented unless qualified.

If a system depends on components that can not be modified
then the system can not be fully independently re-implemented.


As Mark says, you are assuming that independently implementable implies the absence of non-user modifiable components.
That is a qualification of independently implementable, and certainly is not a shared understanding of the phrase.


Independently implementable means that two independent individuals (or organizations) can implement X in a manner that it is sufficiently interoperable (to some expected degree).


This has nothing to do with whether user modifiable or user non-modifiable components are present or required, which is a completely orthogonal criterion.
I'd suggest you find a way to qualify your language so it won't be confusing to those that do not share these assumptions.