W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-media@w3.org > January 2014

Re: EME: Rendering behavior undefined

From: Hans Schmucker <hansschmucker@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 13:47:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMtPrS9hX=5_JOmygYKQdt-xHSMnXJZjUwMk1jX-qzHDZgQCtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi>, "public-html-media@w3.org" <public-html-media@w3.org>
Sorry, that was imprecise....

but aside from that, can anybody else see a reason why it should remain the
way it is now?

--hans


On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Philip J├Ągenstedt <philipj@opera.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Hans Schmucker <hansschmucker@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Ah, thank you Henri,
> >
> > I wasn't aware that Netflix was already deploying their solution (we
> don't
> > have it in Germany). So, we can conclude that describing a plugin-like
> > behavior is unnecessary, outside the scope of the spec and not in line
> with
> > current behavior.
> >
> > I think that makes it very clear: The paragraphs suggesting this kind of
> > behavior are unnecessary and dangerous (as was my suggestion... I did
> assume
> > the worst, much worse than what had actually happened).
> >
> > In summary, they should be removed and at best be replaced with a note
> > saying that usage of a CDM does not change the behavior of the video
> element
> > in any way. Correct?
>
> Probably not entirely correct, since a video element can normally have
> its pixels drawn to a canvas and its audio samples fed into the Web
> Audio API. I haven't checked, but I'd be surprised if either of these
> are possible using EME...
>
> Philip
>
Received on Monday, 13 January 2014 12:47:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 15:48:44 UTC