Re: [EME] Handling CDM availability, permissions, and supported types

Hi David,

It's not clear to my why we can't require that all capability information
for all keysystems supported by a UA is registered with the UA up front, so
that the original isTypeSupported can operate in a synchronous manner. This
capability information is essentially a static table for each keysystem.
The UA presumably has *some* information for each supported keysystem, even
if the CDM itself has not been downloaded (for example, it probably knows
the URL and hash of the CDM) and that information could include capability
information. Is there some issue associated with exposing that information
in advance of CDM download ?

Secondly, whilst it is up to UAs whether and when to prompt for user
permission, we should not assume that a permission prompt is required: the
ideal situation is that the CDM is designed such that it introduces no
incremental privacy or security risks to the user (and the UA knows this)
and so no permission prompt is required. I think we should aim for this
outcome.

...Mark





On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 10/3/14, 6:18 PM, David Dorwin wrote:
>
>>          1. If the member's name is unrecognized or unhandled and the
>>             value is not “optional”, continue to next iteration of the
>> loop.
>>
>
> This requirement can't be fulfilled for the "unrecognized" case.  See
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25923#c40
>
> Other than that, this makes me happy.
>
>        o It's unclear why this is the case or why the same rule does not
>>         apply to Sequence. Maybe Boris knows.
>>
>
> Also see the link above.
>
> -Boris
>
>