Re: Please, reject the EME proposal

Seems like you're saying unless what you have to say is another DRM proposal, don't bother. Am I reading that wrong?

On May 13, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> wrote:

>> show me a place where it both is appropriate and influential in the decision on whether to implement it then
> 
> Making non-technical arguments for or against implementing a particular HTML5 feature is NOT an appropriate use of the W3C HTML WG email lists.  The WG email lists (ie public-html@w3.org, public-html-media@w3.org, public-html-a11y@w3.org) are for technical discussions of current or future HTML5 features or specifications.
> 
> Note that if you have a proposal for another different HTML5 feature that you think satisfies the EME use cases or a different set of use cases then the Chairs encourage you to draft an extension specification to describe that feature.  I recommend that you start by reading "plan 2014" [1] which introduced the idea of extending HTML5 via extension specifications [2].
> 
> /paulc
> HTML WG co-chair
> 
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html 
> [2] http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/html5-2014-plan.html#extension-specs
> 
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: B. Ross Ashley [mailto:brashley46@tfnet.ca] 
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 12:47 PM
> To: public-html-media@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Please, reject the EME proposal
> 
> Please, show me a place where it both is appropriate and influential in the decision on whether to implement it then. If not, then the discussion will still take place in any forum available ...  if I may quote U. S. Grant, "I will fight it out along this line if it takes all summer."
> 
> On 13-05-13 11:38 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 05/13/2013 11:26 AM, piranna@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I agree, EME should be discussed on only one list, both for 
>>> development and criticism.
>> 
>> If you wish to debate the W3C decision that "content protection" is in 
>> scope, please follow Paul's advice.
>> 
>> Until or unless that decision is changed, the chairs are committed to 
>> creating an environment where those that wish to work on EME -- or 
>> even on alternatives to EME -- can do so without interference.
>> 
>> More specifically, if the primary "contribution" of your email 
>> consists of "it seems to me that DRM was a bad idea", then such emails 
>> do not belong here.
>> 
>> - Sam Ruby
>> 
>>> El 13/05/2013 17:24, "Emmanuel Revah" <stsil@manurevah.com 
>>> <mailto:stsil@manurevah.com>> escribió:
>>> 
>>>    On 2013/05/13 16:49, Paul Cotton wrote:
>>> 
>>>        Please take this discussion to a more appropriate forum such as
>>>        http://www.w3.org/community/__restrictedmedia/
>>>        <http://www.w3.org/community/restrictedmedia/>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    Hi Paul,
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    I'm interested in hearing why certain topics related to EME are
>>>    welcome here and others not. I've searched but not found any
>>>    specific guildines for what should be discussed in
>>>    public-html-media, please do post me a link or further details if I
>>>    have missed it.
>>> 
>>>    I have subscribed to
>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/__Public/public-restrictedmedia/
>>> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/> as you
>>>    suggested. I just hope it's not a list intended to isolate unwanted
>>>    criticism of EME from other lists.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    --
>>>    Emmanuel Revah
> 
> 
> --
> B. Ross Ashley
> registered Linux user 548111
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 13 May 2013 21:37:43 UTC