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

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer
<silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.