Re: Encrypted Media proposal: Summary of the discussion so far

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Tab, with all respect, my opinion is that if something is not in a W3C spec
> then it is out of scope (for this proposal and this discussion). Your
> opinion appears to be that anything that can or will go into a user agent is
> in scope. I see no way to bridge that difference, so I will not attempt to
> further justify mine or Cox's position on this subject.

Your definition is extremely weak; using it, one can make *any*
problem "out of scope" simply by dropping them from a spec.  This is
clearly not useful.

A useful definition of what is in-scope is what would need to be
implemented to make the described technology work.  For the spec in
question, that includes the CDMs that are expected to be plugged in.
We don't need to discuss precise implementation details, but the
overall properties of the CDMs *are* important, because they'll be
used in conjunction with this technology.

I'm sorry that you don't understand how to bridge this gap.  Your
refusal to discuss CDMs, though, will not stop the discussion of CDMs
by other people, nor will it help convince anyone who has reservations
about the CDMs to support the proposal.

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 8 March 2012 22:38:00 UTC