On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:35 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: >> > Wrong. Other than Clearkey, individual CDMs are not part of what is >> > specified in the proposal. >> >> And, *once again*, the fact that the CDMs that will *actually be used* >> aren't specified in the spec means the spec is incomplete. If this >> spec moves forward, I will formally object to this lack as well, >> because it is not possible to implement the spec in practice without >> the CDMs that will actually be used. > > You can FO to whatever you like, but you are wrong in claiming that "the > spec is incomplete" merely because some CDM instance that is expected to be > used is not specified by the proposal or by W3C. > > That is equivalent to FOing to canvas.getContext("x-my-context") because > x-my-context is not defined by the W3C and is expected to be used. A rather > absurd proposition, but that is exactly what you are doing. If we were newly speccing canvas and expected an "x-my-content" context to be used, the spec *would* be incomplete without it. I'm not sure why you think this is absurd. Such a context wouldn't necessarily have to be described in the *same spec*, of course. It could be in some other spec, even some other standards body, as long as it had good qualities (namely, being royalty-free and implementable in open-source without licenses). This is precisely the situation with the "webgl" context. So, I don't know how you think that this analogy with <canvas> is helping you at all. The CDM situation is clearly materially different in important ways. ~TJReceived on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 22:27:03 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:50 UTC