W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

From: Chris Pearce <cpearce@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:21:20 +1300
Message-ID: <4F443500.6050804@mozilla.com>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
On 22/02/2012 12:16 p.m., Adrian Bateman wrote:
> Many content providers and application developers have said they can't use<audio>
> and<video>  because HTML lacks robust content protection.

We hear the same feedback. Can you highlight how robust content 
protection can be implemented in an open source webrowser? Specifically, 
since the decoded video frames are stored in memory (as are audio 
samples) so that they can participate in the HTML rendering pipeline, 
how do you guard against an open source web browser simply being patched 
to write the frames/samples to disk to enable (presumably illegal) 
redistribution of the protected content? Or is it not required to guard 
against that case?

Chris Pearce.

> Without this functionality,
> they cannot move their apps to the web platform. Many consumer electronics are taking
> advantage of HTML for both video playback and user interfaces, yet their content
> protection solutions are typically tied to the device. We believe that working
> towards a common solution will reduce fragmentation between all HTML platforms.
> This has been raised in the Web&  TV Interest Group [1] and mentioned in their
> feedback [2]. We believe this extension specification supports the counter proposal [3]
> for ISSUE-179 [4]. It demonstrates how to provide additional functionality to the
> HTML5 media element without requiring a generic mechanism like<param>.
> Best regards,
> David Dorwin, Google
> Adrian Bateman, Microsoft
> Mark Watson, Netflix
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF#Content_Protection
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2011Dec/0120.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/issue-179_no_change
> [3] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/179
> On Wednesday, January 11, 2012 11:40 PM, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> '{audio,video} require param child (or equivalent)'
>> The current status for this issue:
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/179
>> http://dev.w3.org/html5/status/issue-status.html#ISSUE-179
>> So far, we two one Change Proposals submitted:
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/av_param
>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/ChangeProposals/issue-179_no_change
>> At this time the Chairs would also like to solicit additional Change
>> Proposals, in case anyone would like to advocate the status quo or a
>> different change than the specific ones in the existing Change Proposals.
>> If no counter-proposals or alternate proposals are received by February 11th,
>> 2012, we proceed to evaluate the change proposals that we have received to
>> date.
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
Received on Thursday, 23 February 2012 09:24:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:48 UTC