- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 00:30:19 -0400
- To: "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com>
- CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org, cobaco@freemen.be
On 7/1/2013 2:55 PM, piranna@gmail.com wrote: > > > The reasons why the Director accepted the requirement are outlined > in my blog post on this subject. I understand that many in the Free > Software community do not view this as valid. So on this point > apparently we will disagree. > > > And since W3C is proud that its standards are defined by consensus, > having so much confrontation should EME specification stopped until at > least some of the differences between both sides get a common point? > We certainly are trying to find consensus. That's why we are spending time in this discussion. I continue to search for one. Recently, for example, I proposed that we work together on an open source, breakable CDM. That did not find much traction on this list. I also enumerated other approaches to content protection on this list. However, I don't think anyone has proposed to the Working Group whether or how they provide adequate protection. I would encourage them to do so if they have such a complete solution.
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2013 04:30:24 UTC