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

2012/2/27 Kornel Lesiński <>

> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:59:44 -0000, Vickers, Mark <
>**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.

Defining an ABI between browsers and CDM implementations is a reasonable
task, but *not* a task for the W3C.

Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 03:07:40 UTC