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

El 25/09/13 06:03, Paul Cotton escribió:
>> I feel we shouldn't show advance if we haven't achieved consensus on the draft
> It is not appropriate to attempt to attempt to block the publication of a heartbeat document just because you do not agree with the contents of the entire draft.
Perhaps your assertion was true at first. But I realized EME was going
to be a reality. I changed my mind and instead of trying to block EME,
I'd like to work to get a better EME. An EME that is technically
appropriate for the industry business model and respectfull for users.
Perhaps my point of view may be of value too.

>   There have been many heartbeat documents published by W3C WGs which outline outstanding issues that obviously need more work.  In fact the status section of the candidate EME WD outlines several EME bugs that are not yet resolved by this draft:
>
> 	Note: It is an open issue whether and how the spec should do more to encourage/ensure CDM-level interop. See Bug 20944.
>
> 	Note: This specification contains sections for describing security and privacy considerations. These sections are not final and are tracked in Bug 22909 and Bug 22910.
>
> /paulc
> HTML WG co-chair
>
> Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julio Serrano [mailto:mhysterio@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 7:14 PM
> To: public-html-media@w3.org
> Subject: 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.
>>
>>
>