RE: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

> Maybe then we could have a better view of valid, invalid and controversial reasons for/against EME.

The W3C has already ruled that EME is in scope for the HTML WG [1].  See also the W3C CEO's blog post at [2].

Please do NOT start email threads on this list arguing that EME or DRM is out of scope for the HTML WG.  If you want to discuss such matters please take them somewhere else and possibly to the Restricted Media Community Group [3].  

The public-html-media@w3.org email list is for technical discussions about the EME and MSE specifications.  

/paulc
HTML WG co-chair

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html 
[2] http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html 
[3] http://www.w3.org/community/restrictedmedia/ 

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Revah [mailto:stsil@manurevah.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 4:30 AM
To: public-html-media@w3.org
Subject: Re: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

On 2013/05/31 03:54, Boris Zbarsky wrote:

> These are also issues that have been
> brought up on this list before, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering 
> again...


There are some very valid concerns that have been brought up here that have not received a satisfactory reply, if any at all. Maybe there are too many various concerns all combined in one thread. A better tactic could be to create a thread specific to each concern about EME. Maybe then we could have a better view of valid, invalid and controversial reasons for/against EME.


--
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com

Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 13:50:02 UTC