W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > March 2012

'what is the web' Re: Encrypted Media proposal: Summary of the discussion so far

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:16:36 +0100
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "Christian Kaiser" <kaiserc@google.com>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>
To: "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>, "Andreas Kuckartz" <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
Message-ID: <op.waq0dybjwxe0ny@widsith.eng.oslo.osa>
(This is not an argument about whether DRM is good or evil, and more  
relevantly not an argument about the actual merits of the proposal on the  
table. I'll get to the latter. This is a sidetracking argument about what  
is in scope for W3C)

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 08:35:53 +0100, Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>

> On 06.03.2012 05:48, Mark Watson wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2012, at 5:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

>>> In effect, we're choosing a different way to honor both parties'
>>> rights - by simply preventing copyright owners that try to require
>>> such things from using the open web.

>> If by 'open web' you mean the subset of the web which
>> can be accessed using purely RF Open Source software,
>> then this is fine. This is a reflection of the right of software
>> authors to license their products on their terms: for
>> example with GPLv3, thereby preventing implementation
>> of exactly the features some copyright owners require.
>> But this 'open web' is not the whole web. And
>> W3C standards already provide hooks for non-RF
>> software to be plugged in. Trying to restrict the whole
>> web into being only what you call the open web is
>> unreasonable and even dangerous. What we should
>> do is try to expand the open web to encompass as
>> much as possible of the real web.
> The W3C is about Open Web Standards and the open web and not about other
> kinds of standards or webs and therefore should take a very clear stance
> against all attempts to close it or parts of it.

Actually, as one small part of W3C I disagree. There is a lot of work W3C
does that is relevant to being able to use the Web for things which are
not on 'the open web'.

The W3C is about making open standards, so we can allow the technology
stack that builds the open web to encompass what people do in reality.
(Which is what Mark said).

W3C is about what the sum of its participants decide it is about. W3C
includes people who claim that anything you can't google is out of scope,
as well as people who claim it would be stupid to restrict what we do to
only that content which is freely available, since we would lose the value
of people who are required to work on closed content and are interested in
making it part of the web. I am in the latter camp.

Early Web content tended to be a shim of HTML linking up a web full of  
proprietary documents locked in closed systems, both parts being essential  
to the function. Today's Web experience often includes the reverse - a  
shim of proprietary content locked in a search engine that links up a  
massive amount of public data. I suspect everyone agrees that would be  
stupid to attempt to restrict the Web to work only with search systems  
that are open and public, and I don't see why it makes sense to try to  
restrict it in the other direction.

We return you to the discussion of DRM mechanisms...


Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
       je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2012 12:17:17 UTC

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