- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 09:47:48 -0400
- To: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
- Cc: "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
> Point of order. The W3C has directed discussion of the EME to > the Restricted Media Community group and it is not clear that > the HTML WG has any standing to formally address this specification. > > http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/03/drm_and_the_open_web.html I don't understand how you reached such a conclusion. Here is a quote from the blog entry written by Wendy: [[ [...] We invite those who are interested in the technical discussions about Encrypted Media Extensions to monitor or participate in the HTML Working Group, which is open to all. [...] ]] (btw, the HTML Working Group is actually open to W3C Members and invited experts. We're very welcoming in the HTML Working Group if you're willing to commit to RF licensing). The W3C never directed the discussion of EME to the Restricted Media Community Group. Again, quoting from the blog: [[ To help crystallize the technical discussions around Encrypted Media and DRM, we're opening a new Restricted Media Community Group specifically to consider the paired challenges of openness and access-restriction. [...] The CG does not intend to develop specifications, although it might approach requirements documents from a user perspective. ]] The Community Group is intended to have higher level discussion. Those discussion could feed back into the HTML Working Group later, ideally before EME reaches W3C Recommendation. That doesn't mean the HTML Working Group has to stop its work in the meantime however. See also http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html Philippe
Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 13:47:56 UTC