Re: CfC: to publish a Encrypted Media Exstensions" hearbeat Working Draft

El 24/09/13 19:24, David Singer escribió:
> I think you may be confused about the conditions to publish a heartbeat.  A heartbeat is supposed to show where the group currently is;  not that they think the document is perfect, or that all technical problems have been solved, or all issues resolved.
>
> We are looking for cases where the editors can and should fix something before publication, because the document either has editorial problems, or fails to reflect agreements in the group.
>
> "We agreed that the sentence XX XX XXX X XXXX would be removed, and it is still there."
> "The sections numbers go 1.1, 1.2, and then 1.4;  1.3 is missing"
> "The copyright notice is missing"
> "There are spelling mistakes here, here and here"
> …

I may be confused, yes. But I understand that a heartbeat is to show
advance. I feel we shouldn't show
advance if we haven't achieved consensus on the draft. I, personally,
humbly, declaring my ignorance
about burocracy matters reject the draft as it is now.

I think people don't expect a lot of work done during summer, so we can
wait one month or even two
before publishing the next heartbeat.

>
> On Sep 23, 2013, at 19:18 , Mhyst <mhysterio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Another objection I find is on the "Goals" section. Third line reads like this:
>>
>> "Support a range of content security models, including software and
>> hardware-based models"
>>
>> If I understand it well, it says some CDM may require specific
>> hardware (i.e. a crippled graphics card).
>> I find this to be unbearable. Seriously do you pretend to approve a
>> standard which would lead to
>> remove users freedom to general purpose computing?
>>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>