W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

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

From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2012 11:14:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dtrXjNKqVpA_eNXfeHEruPy13vVRq6mmK0xxbvXTjFUw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer

> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
> wrote:
> >> The underlying content protection systems are things like PlayReady
> (from
> >> Microsoft), Widevine (from Google) and Marlin. Adobe have something,
> but I
> >> don't know what they call it.
> >
> > As a co-proposer, does Microsoft plan to integrate PlayReady into IE?
> > As a co-proposer, does Google plan to integrate Widevine into Chrome?
> > Do the co-proposers plan to make their CDMs available to other
> > browsers? Do the co-proposers plan to provide APIs that'd allow adding
> > other CDMs to their browsers?
> I'm confused. I thought the whole idea of the proposal was to just
> provide an API for adding CDMs into browsers such that when you have
> the library installed on your computer, any browser is able to make
> use of it, no matter if it's Google's Widevine library or Microsoft's
> PlayReady - e.g. Firefox would be able to make use of these and any
> other CDM library. There would be no need to implement something
> additional into browsers. If this is false, somebody better clarify
> how else it is supposed to work.

Yes, that is indeed the idea. But Henri keeps wanting to drill down into
the CDMs themselves, which is really out of scope for the proposal.
Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 18:15:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:49 UTC