- From: Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:14:27 -0000
- To: "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 17:22:17 -0000, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote: > If not, why do you think a different process should apply to this > proposal ? > > I think in this case we will get prototype implementations much earlier > in the process than required and that this is indeed a good thing. I think early implementations are necessary to move the discussion forward, because the spec heavily relies on CDMs, and important questions about interoperability, accessibility, and architecture of the implementations cannot be answered, because they're undefined and CDM-specific. Implications of the proposal can be wildly different depending on what actual CDMs emerge. If there is going to be a useful royalty-free CDM with defined interface that can work with various browsers and platforms, then the outcome can be positive. OTOH if it turns out that only current DRM incumbents develop CDMs that only work with selected browsers, and CDMs bypass entire media stack, then outcome of the proposal will be no better than the current situation. We can be endlessly arguing which scenario is more likely, but that's unproductive. With actual implementations we'll have facts to discuss. We'll be able to see what architectures were chosen and what level of interoperability and robustness has been achieved. -- regards, Kornel Lesiński
Received on Friday, 9 March 2012 19:14:52 UTC