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

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

From: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:47:40 -0000
To: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wavohqrcte2ec8@aimac.local>
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:12:35 -0000, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> 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.
> If I can answer any further technical questions about these  
> requirements, I am more than happy to do so. In some cases, I may be  
> unable to answer certain questions due to license or business  
> constraints. But I'll respond when I can and tell you when I can't.

You're asking the group not to focus on the most likely usage scenario of  
the proposal (including deployment by company you represent), and only  
focus on narrowly-defined scope of the spec that has no purpose without  

Most important components dependent on this spec ("robust" CDMs) don't  
have precise requirements outlined, may not even be possible to discuss  
publicly, and Cox and Netflix cannot commit to supporting the only  
keysystem that this spec mentions.

Without complete, reliable information backing this proposal the group  
ends up arguing about vague promises, guesses, fears and hypothetical  
scenarios instead. That doesn't seem like a good way to create a solid  
technical solution.

While W3C has created some purely theoretical specs in the past, IMHO the  
good specs were based on actual implementation experience, so I urge the  
WG not to proceed with this proposal until at least one CDM that meets the  
(so far unwritten) requirements is prototyped.

I think it would be irresponsible for W3C to accept a proposal only by  
analyzing the narrow scope it defines for itself, without looking how it  
fits the larger picture, what implications it has for the Web as a whole,  
and whether actual real-world usage (not merely theoretical  
spec-lawyering) is going to help W3C's mission.

regards, Kornel Lesiński
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 00:48:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:50 UTC