Re: Encrypting content stored on untrusted CDNs

>> It's when you're trying to prevent the user from getting to the
>> content that it stops making any kind of sense.
>Yes, I understand this does not make any sense to you. But it does to
>others. It's a pre-requisite for services like Netflix to use HTML5
>instead of plugins. This list is not the place to argue the ethics of
>that. W3C needs to decide whether to work on making that a possibility,
>or whether HTML5 is simply not going to be a suitable technology for our
>segment of the industry, which would be a shame.
>> -- 
>> Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
>>       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
>> Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Indeed, Mark's point is the crux of the issue. There are several
participants in the Web & TV IG and in this group who have content
protection requirements and many of them have spoken up. These
participants hope to use HTML5 because they believe it can provide a
better solution than what is currently available. I am hopeful that we can
work together to find a solution that both meets the requirements of those
who need (at least currently) content protection to provide their service
and those who are charged with the stewardship of HTML.


Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 06:04:53 UTC