- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:30:03 -0700
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>, public-html@w3.org
On Apr 15, 2012, at 7:07 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote: >> >> On Apr 15, 2012, at 8:44 AM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote: >> >>> On 14.04.2012 23:59, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>>> Objection: I object to this task force being >>>> named the "HTML WG Media Task Force", as >>>> this implies their area of responsibility would >>>> be all HTML Media work. ... >>>> I previously suggested "HTML WG Encrypted Media >>>> Task Force" and no one objected to this alternate >>>> name. Changing the name would remove my objection. >>> >>> I agree that "Media Task Force" is not appropriate. But "Encrypted Media >>> Task Force" also is not appropriate for the same reason. >>> >>> The Task Force (if it is created at all) should be named in a way which >>> does not hide the real intentions. Two suggestions: >>> - Content Protection Task Force >> >> I think "Content Protection Task Force" is ok and not unreasonably prejudicial either way. I think the other suggested names are not appropriate. > > "Content Protection TF" is not restricted to audio and video. Are we > suggesting that the TF is to work on content protection schemes for > any type of content, not just media? I don't think anyone wants to suggest that. I would personally accept "Media Content Protection TF" as well. If you want to be technical, "media" is not necessarily limited to timed media. So perhaps "A/V Content Protection TF". Regards, Maciej
Received on Monday, 16 April 2012 02:31:50 UTC