On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> No. Again, a working CDM is *required* for this API to be of any use. > >> If implementing a working CDM is troublesome or impossible for > >> various reasons, that makes the API itself useless. > > > > A no-op CDM is a working CDM. However, I agree that it is obviously the > case > > that there is an expectation in producing this proposal that non no-op > CDMs > > will be implemented and deployed. In that regard, I agree it is a fair > > question to query the proposers (and others) on whether they have > intentions > > to build/deploy real world CDMs, and also that there is an expectation > that > > (eventual) implementation reports will include information demonstrating > > that such real world CDMs have been tested. I presume there is such > intent, > > but it doesn't hurt to ask. However, I would argue that it is not > > necessarily appropriate to ask (in this forum) for more details of > specific > > CDM implementations, such as licensing terms, etc. > > You're still wrong. CDMs aren't floating in the ether to be used by > any who are interested. If the CDMs that are expected to be used are > restricted in various ways, such as requiring licensing fees, being > closed-source so browsers can't fix security bugs in them, being > restricted to only certain OSes/platforms, etc., that's problematic. > We'll have to agree to disagree. It is not a matter of being right or wrong.
Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 19:39:48 UTC