- From: Vickers, Mark <Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:18:53 +0000
- To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- CC: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>, 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>
David brings up the interesting issue of support for content protection in the existing spec. I have related questions for David and the proposal authors: David Singer: 1. How would the application and user agent communicate the particular content-protection scheme? Would it be in the source element type and/or codecs attributes? Can you give a concrete example? 2. How would the application key server connect to the user-agent key client? 3. Are there any examples deployed, prototyped or proposed for a specific content protection system using HTML5 in this manner? David Dorwin, Adrian Bateman, Mark Watson: 1. Can you provide a functionality comparison of content protection using the current specs vs. with your proposal? Thanks, mav On Feb 27, 2012, at 10:12 AM, David Singer wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2012, at 15:16 , Adrian Bateman wrote: > >> Many content providers and application developers have said they can't use <audio> >> and <video> because HTML lacks robust content protection. > > > I'd really appreciate it if myths like this were not propagated. HTML5 says nothing at all about the format of embedded media resources. If the platform supports robust content protection, they are as playable as anything else. > > Similarly the proposal itself starts with the same flawed implication, that protected content cannot be played in HTML5: > > "This proposal extends HTMLMediaElement to enable playback of protected content. " > > > David Singer > Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc. > >
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 20:19:33 UTC