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 17:37:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dz8p3545c2Nk81x8za1J7bBPmwuMVG4VaF6pRKEi8mDw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
Cc: public-html@w3.org
2012/3/5 Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>

> On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:55:09 -0000, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
> wrote:
>  I'm not sure I agree with that. What about H.264 ? This is part of the
>>>> functionality several browsers expose to web content.
>>> H.264 is a huge problem and it's harmful to the Web that several browser
>>> expose H.264 decoding to the Web without first arranging H.264 to become RF.
>> It's much more harmful to restrict people's freedom to use the technology
>> of their choice to offer services on the Web.
> You're free to implement this proposal and browser vendors are free to
> adopt it. W3C has no power to restrict any party from doing so.
> The only thing that is restricted here is W3C's support for proposal which
> enables technologies that may be in conflict with W3C's mission.

You may think there is a conflict. Cox does not. In fact, Cox believes it
is the W3Cs mission to improve the effectiveness and interoperability of
HTML, and that the proposal does exactly that.

However, I recognize that different parties may reach different conclusions
based on their preferences. Ultimately, the normal W3C process will be
followed, with the chairs gauging the community for consensus and taking
the issue to the members, the AB, and the W3C team as needed to obtain a
resolution. Just because there are a few supporters and a few opponents in
this thread will not determine the final outcome.
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 00:38:46 UTC

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