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: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 12:04:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA9+36fdCxLLucSrDtCYmAHPUE_qMY965R45MPAjBw-zg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: John Simmons <johnsim@microsoft.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> As argued multiple times, it would be a disservice to the web platform
>> >> as a whole to bake closed-source royalty-encumbered technology into
>> >> HTML.
>> >
>> > And who is proposing doing this? Nobody. Nobody is proposing requiring a
>> > specific encumbered CDM just as nobody is proposing a specific
>> > encumbered
>> > A/V codec. Please stop making claims that are patently untrue.
>> Sigh.  It's not untrue.  As Mark Watson has admitted, the CDMs that
>> Netflix *actually expects to be able to use* are closed-source and/or
>> royalty-encumbered.  I expect other video distributors to be similar.
> Just because Netflix, or Cox, or Comcast, or any commercial video provider
> would make use of non-RF CDMs does not mean those technologies are "baked
> ... into HTML".
> Many users employ Flash, but it isn't baked into HTML. This is a choice for
> authors and browser manufacturers. If you as a browser vendor don't want to
> support a means to make use of Flash or make use of a non-RF CDM, then feel
> free to do so. That's your choice. But don't pretend that you have the right
> to make that choice for others.

For many years, Flash *was* baked into the web.  Even today, Flash
support is *nearly* a requirement for any new desktop browsers.  I'm
thankful for Apple's efforts to make Flash less important on the web
by taking the hit of not supporting it on iOS, but we're not all the
way there yet.

If something is required for you to maintain a userbase, it's not
really a choice.  It's a de facto requirement.

>> Unless you have evidence that a sufficiently large marketshare of
>> video distributors are actually planning to use an open-source
>> royalty-free CDM like ClearKey, we must treat the CDM section of the
>> spec as being poisonous.
> No we don't. The only poison I see here is the form of technological fascism
> you appear to advocate. If you wish to create a sandbox in which only
> content authors and browser vendors mutually agree that only RF technologies
> are used, then feel free to do so, but don't mistake the Real Web as that
> sandbox. The Real Web serves the real world which includes both free and
> commercial content and services, and the real world includes and makes use
> of non-RF technologies to get its job done. Perhaps you can call your
> sandbox the "Open Web", which may forever remain a subset of the Real Web.
> W3C technologies and specifications should be able to be employed wherever
> suitable. They should not come with a legal notice: "W3C Technologies Shall
> Not be Used outside of the Open Web".
> If you want to conduct a campaign to make the entire Real Web the same as
> the Open Web, then feel free to do so, but let's not use this forum or this
> thread to conduct that fight. It is a distraction and time sink for those of
> us actually trying to use the Real Web.

"technological fascism".  Really?  Welp, this thread has been
Godwinned.  Thanks for playing, Glenn.

Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 20:05:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:21 UTC