- From: wrong string <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:58:03 +0100
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>
- Cc: public-html@w3.org
>> >> EME will still require users to have a proprietary plugin (CDM) to access your service. > > CDMs are not plugins. I'm not sure how many times we have to repeat > that before people will stop propagating this myth. My interpretation of the EME spec is that CDMs are going to be third party code plugged into the browser somehow. If it's not the intention to let CDMs be "browser add-on" then perhaps section 1.2.1 should be removed or changed to say so normatively without "may or may not" loophole. > Yes, they share some features with plugins (notably some if not all > will be proprietary code), but there are many differences, not least > that no browsers have any plans to make them user-installable, users > will have a choice - through their choice of browser In that aspect Flash on ChromeOS isn't any different than Netflix CDM on ChromeOS. Nothing to install, baked into the browser, not replaceable. If browser vendors made a deal with Adobe and/or Microsoft to link Flash/Silverlight binary into browsers and make them available by default and remove ability to replace them or install other plugins - would you say Flash and Silverlight are not plugins any more? I would still call them plugins, because it doesn't remove the key characteristic: browser vendors having to ship somebody else's black box they cannot replace. CDMs have exactly that problem. > - and browsers will have some control over what the CDMs can do. I'm concerned that DMCA and lack of open spec for CDM API gives CDM vendors very strong leverage over browser vendors that NPAPI plugins didn't have. Do you plan to address that problem somehow? -- regards, Kornel
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2013 23:58:36 UTC