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: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 13:51:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+fVzHrTmrrUEUWb0vXwJS543zizhe6zPbRr13iG7YCqAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.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 1:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> > 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.

your welcome ... are we having fun yet? ;)

just to be clear, I used the term in its general sense of meaning
"intolerance" ... words like "unethical" and "poisonous" coming from Ian
and you seem nothing if not intolerant; these words deny the legitimacy of
content authors to choose how they deliver content, who they deliver
content to, and any conditions they impose on that content; while I may
take personal issue with such choices, I respect their right to use their
property as they see fit within the law

most of the arguments coming from you and others of like mind appear to be
attempting to deny or at least delegitimize such choices... so yes, i
interpret that as intolerance and a form of technological fascism since you
are casting such a position as a policy to instill in W3C technologies
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 20:52:09 UTC

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