Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals) from Andreas Kuckartz on 2012-03-02 (public-html@w3.org from March 2012)

From: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
Date: 2 Mar 2012 21:54:26 +0100
To: "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Silvia Pfeiffer" <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "Henri Sivonen" <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4F513382.3030902@ping.de>

On 02.03.2012 19:42, Glenn Adams wrote:
> Of course, at the black box level for the purpose of defining the
> API behavior of the CDM, it is necessary to define semantics.
> However, a single instance of a no-op CDM (that translates plaintext
> to plaintext) would be sufficient to verify that behavior and test the
> API.

I do not see any reason why an API for a no op might be required.

Maybe it is time to reject the proposal without spending more time on it.

Cheers,
Andreas

Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 20:54:51 UTC