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

On Mar 5, 2012 7:41 PM, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

All right, just checking. Your wording simply seemed odd to me.

> Are you under the mistaken impression that a minority of browser
implementors can dictate what the market needs or can use?

The browser vendors do indeed get to "dictate" what web technologies the
market can use, since they're the ones implementing those techs.

(It's statements like these that make me worry when I hear you use wording
like the above.)

~TJ