- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 17:20:36 +0200
- To: Florian Bösch <pyalot@gmail.com>
- CC: Casey Callaghan <caseyc37@gmail.com>, John Foliot <john@foliot.ca>, Andreas Kuckartz <a.kuckartz@ping.de>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, "timbl@w3.org" <timbl@w3.org>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>, "jeff@w3.org" <jeff@w3.org>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
> I don't think even DRM opponents would take issue with standardizing > it. But that's not what you're doing. You're merely formalizing the > platform fragmentation and claim that's progress. "You do this, you do that." Sorry, no, *I* don't do anything. I just replied to a mail to restate the way standardization works, because I felt it was completely wrong. If it was possible to stop seeing the world as a Manichean thing where if I'm not with you I'm against you, that would be a nice step toward consensus, I think. The only thing I'm doing is expressing the fact that if a majority of browsers intend to implement something, this is a standards. According to your reasoning, the <object> tag also 'formalize the platform fragmentation' so does the <img> or the <audio> tag since the image formats to support are not restricted by the spec and some could be proprietary. Yet, they were standardized. Would they be invented today, they would still be. I think you'll have to accept that. If you want EME not to become a standards, give the browser vendors that intend to implement it a reason *that works for them* why they should not implement it. That's it.
Received on Friday, 31 May 2013 15:21:07 UTC