2012/2/27 Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net> > On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 01:59:44 -0000, Vickers, Mark < > Mark_Vickers@cable.comcast.**com <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. 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