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: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 06:24:03 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, Kornel <kornel@geekhood.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FDB8DE35-3CD0-499A-91C3-01AEEADB445F@netflix.com>

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 5, 2012, at 10:09 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com<mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Mar 5, 2012 7:41 PM, "Glenn Adams" <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com<mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com<mailto:glenn@skynav.com>> wrote:
>> > 2012/3/5 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com<mailto: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.

Assuming you count Chrome and Safari as 2, even though they both use WebKit, you should remember that there are many more implementations than just the desktop browsers. WebKit-based implementations exist on 100s of CE devices. Most if not all CE device vendors are deploying web implementations. There are many on mobile phones. There is ChromeOS and GoogleTV also.

I'd be willing to bet that if you asked all the 'implementors' there would be a substantial majority in favour of this proposal.

Amongst the desktop browser vendors, Microsoft and Google are clearly in favour - since their names are on the proposal. The one comment from Apple was positive.

This is absolutely not to say that the implementation concerns raised don't need to be addressed, but we are right at the beginning of this process, with only the very first draft on the table. We'll be able to work those things out.

Having said all that, whilst implementation experience is vital to good specifications - and so implementors do influence the specification more than non-implementors - W3C needs to pay attention to its members when setting scope and policy.


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

Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 06:24:50 UTC

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