Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> > 2012/3/5 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> >> Precisely.  We don't need to "burn down the town" (to use your words);
> >> we just need to maintain the status quo until copyright owners are
> >> willing to come to the table with more reasonable expectations and use
> >> the technology we're already providing them.
> >
> > The reasonableness of content owner expectations is not an issue we can
> > determine here. If you wish to go off and create a restrictive W3C
> > doppleganger, then feel free to do so. In the mean time, the W3C members
> > will choose what makes sense for the majority as opposed to a stentorian
> > minority.
>
> I notice that you used the term "W3C members" rather than the more
> usual terms "implementors", "UAs", or "browser vendors".  Are you
> under the mistaken impression that buying a W3C membership grants the
> ability to control what goes into browsers?
>

No. Are you under the mistaken impression that a minority of browser
implementors can dictate what the market needs or can use?