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

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:59:44 -0000, Vickers, Mark  
<Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.com> wrote:

>>>> I mean that browser integration with a CDM is easier than browser  
>>>> integration with a full-fledged plugin, because the functionality of  
>>>> the CDM is so much more constrained.
>>>
>>> Will there be a specified, interoperable CDM communication interface  
>>> that browsers can implement?
>>
>> IMO, there could be if people would like there to be. On the other hand  
>> there is no such standardized API for plugins or media codecs.
>
> I think this would be very useful to define a standard API that could be  
> used with both software and hardware key systems. This is a much more  
> narrow, well-defined interface than the all-purpose plug-in APIs.

I agree this needs to be added. Even if I wanted to say that "The current  
proposal is fantastic! Let's do it!" and write patches for Firefox and  
Chrome today, I couldn't — at this point the CDM side is all hypothetical  
and there is no "meat" in the spec to actually implement.

-- 
regards, Kornel Lesiński