- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:01:46 -0800
- 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. -Charles
Received on Friday, 2 March 2012 21:02:02 UTC