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: Carr, Wayne <wayne.carr@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:16:51 +0000
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)" <public-html@w3.org>
CC: David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Message-ID: <52F8A45B68FD784E8E4FEE4DA9C6E52A33F1E74E@ORSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com>
We strongly support the effort and thank Google, Microsoft and Netflix for their work on bringing this forward.  We think the HTML WG should explore continuing work on this.

I have (and am) out sick, haven't look at the details, but do think if there is a reasonable path forward on this we should explore it.

  Wayne Carr
(Intel's AC rep)

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Adrian Bateman [mailto:adrianba@microsoft.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 3:17 PM
>To: Maciej Stachowiak; HTML WG (public-html@w3.org)
>Cc: David Dorwin; Mark Watson
>Subject: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit
>Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)
>Hi all,
>We have been collaborating on an API to enable encrypted media in HTML that
>we think can be implemented in all browsers and support any container/codec
>and content encryption solution without making major changes to the HTML
>Media element specification. We think it solves most use cases without being
>overly large or complex.
>We'd like to get people's feedback on the proposal. It is posted here:

>Many content providers and application developers have said they can't use
><audio> and <video> because HTML lacks robust content protection. 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 Friday, 24 February 2012 10:17:26 UTC

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