- From: Clarke Stevens <C.Stevens@CableLabs.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 23:04:13 -0700
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
> > > >> 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. > >...Mark > >> >> -- >> Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL >> http://ln.hixie.ch/ 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. Thanks, -Clarke
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 06:04:53 UTC