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: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:01:46 -0800
Message-ID: <4F51353A.8020808@jumis.com>
To: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, "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>
On 3/2/2012 12:54 PM, Andreas Kuckartz wrote:
> 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.

I'm happy to call out: "show us an implementation".

It worked well to move WebRTC forward. It seems we've laid out a good 
amount of discussion and cases on this thread.

It's time to see this thing in action and in code.

Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 21:02:02 UTC

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