- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:49:00 -0600
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, David Dorwin <ddorwin@google.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, public-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+cz1PiNN-4yasyoCb8mdWFXj+LtbGmU=T1eY4DVLxOhGA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > > 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. > Not by my definition of layered specifications. You seem to be articulating a notion of an all-encompassing specification only published by the W3C. Given that the real world is based on layered specifications defined by different organizations using different IPR policies, I find the notion that everything under the sun should be included in a W3C specification to be 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. > Since the majority of other standards bodies do not employ RF and FOSS policies, then you are effectively making an argument that all other standards bodies should change their policies based on your notion of "good qualities". I find that an absurd argument due to its ideological purism. > 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. I don't agree. Both canvas.getContext() and media.generateKeyRequest() are based on the notion of an architectural and specification layering between the canvas and context implementation and between the media and CDM implementation, respectively. Personally, I would support the proposed "friendly" amendment of inserting an additional context object, e.g., media.getKeyContext(*keyContextName*) and then define a W3C specified keyContextName/keyContext pair that is based on the current EME proposal [1].
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2012 22:49:50 UTC