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

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Henri Sivonen <> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Glenn Adams <> wrote:
> >> > I'm not sure what is meant by "what the web considers HTML5" but in
> >> > general, (current generation) SmartTVs do not try to support browsing
> >> > the web at large.
> ...
> > (3) these issues are relevant to this WG because these service providers
> and
> > their end users are both customers and members of this WG;
> Personally, I disagree and think that the World Wide Web Consortium
> should be focused on the World Wide Web and not put effort into
> catering to user agents that don't try to support browsing the Web at
> large.
> It would be helpful to at least clearly separate requirements that
> pertain to browsers meant to support browsing the Web at large from
> requirements that pertain to devices that use HTML for other purposes.

again, I will repeat that I was describing current/prior use of HTML on
television devices; notwithstanding that fact, there is a desire to
progress these devices to a state where they can accommodate most common
web content; at the same time, there are some performance issues related to
current hardware which was how this subject arose; namely, that a solution
which relied upon or required block decryption in JS may be problematic; it
has been pointed out that exposing a block decryption API at the JS level
does not imply that the decryption algorithm must be JS, so this may turn
out to be a non-issue; i also pointed out (which Mark has further
elaborated) that the primary issue is going to be about whether decrypted
frames will be exposed at the JS layer, which is unrelated to performance

Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 13:01:36 UTC