- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 14:12:38 -0800
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, public-html@w3.org
On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:> >> Thirdly, your claim "a necessary side-effect, makes it impossible to provide >> > accessibility improvements like brightness/contrast controls or audio >> > filtering" is factually wrong. >> >> Please explain how it is possible to provide accessibility >> improvements like this if the DRM component controls the entire >> rendering pipeline, providing the video to the browser as an overlay. > > There is nothing in the proposal that mandates any of: > > (1) "the DRM component controls the entire rendering pipeline" > (2) "providing the video to the browser as an overlay" That was given as a reasonably possible DRM component that a movie distributor might require, and neither you or Mark has stated definitely that it's not a possibility. > If what you say is true, then the same comment would equally apply to > canvas.getContext(). Um, what? > The facts are that whether or not (1) or (2) is true depends on (A) how the > browser implements the proposal, the media pipeline, and video frame > compositing, and (B) what control features the browser is willing to > delegate to a CDM instance. > > A browser implementer may choose (A) or (B) based on their own criteria, > which is not specified in the proposal. Some browsers may choose (A) or (B) > in a manner that precludes the use of certain CDMs. That's fine, and that's > outside the scope of the proposal as far as I'm concerned. That is a > business decision that should not be dictated by a W3C specification. Once again, if a video distributor requires a CDM that does this (and you continue to suggest this is a possibility), then it's a de facto part of the proposal. The fact that this is a possibility is a strike against the proposal. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 22:13:26 UTC