Re: Protected media element sources

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 6:46 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote:
> I'm not convinced that such attributes would actually be of much use.
> The web page is already in an excellent position to know whether or
> not EME is in use

Right.

> and it's likely that the answer to "does it work
> with canvas" will be universally "no" for all kinds of encrypted media
> and CDMs, no?

I don't think that's a given.

Note that defining unavailability in the case of Clear Key would
amount to the W3C stipulating a DRM compliance rule and open source
code potentially becoming sensitive to complying such a rule. It seems
more prudent to leave spec rules to "if the CDM doesn't let you have
the data, do this in cases where otherwise data would be passed"
instead of saying "don't let API such and such have this data if EME
is used". After all, the point of separating the CDM from the User
Agent is to avoid making the User Agent subject to Robustness rules or
Compliance Rules.

> I guess that I'd like to see the problem shown in the wild before
> trying to fix it.

Indeed.

I wonder if msGraphicsTrustStatus is related to EME and, if it is,
what use case it serves. (Search for msGraphicsTrustStatus in
https://typescript.codeplex.com/sourcecontrol/latest#bin/lib.d.ts .)

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:47 AM, Hans Schmucker
<hansschmucker@gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason this came to be is actually not because script authors need to
> know, but because other specifications shouldn't have to repeat the
> definition of protected content over and over again.

If that problem is worth addressing, it could be addressed as a matter
of defining the concept of media data unavailability in specs without
exposing the concept as a script property unless there's a good use
case for exposing it.

>> >>>> Does anybody see any other issues?

"protected" is a propaganda term.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@hsivonen.fi
https://hsivonen.fi/

Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2014 08:41:24 UTC