- From: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
- Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 18:34:39 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 2013/07/05 20:32, David Singer wrote: Hello David, > 2) Implementability. I think that there may be an implied principle > that if you implement (enough, I hope not all) W3C recommendations, > then your implementation can go anywhere -- visit anything -- on the > open web (though you may be asked to pay for content, or sign > agreement, create accounts, and so on, you won't be blocked by an > technical gap). > > I'm not sure we do well at meeting this principle, if it exists. > Obvious problems are web plug-ins, such as Flash or QuickTime. On this point I do feel that EME, which requires CDMs, replaces the "Flash problem" with something similar, although more trivial. It does appear to imply that certain browsers, operating systems and/or hardware may be required to access content published using certain CDMs. I've said this a few times; Any configuration not supported by the CDMs used by the content provider will be excluded from this part of the "open" web, even if the user accepts all the agreements and all the non-free plugins/code offered. Such a thing would mean that the W3C standards no longer respect the "Web for all" principle. http://www.w3.org/Consortium/mission#principles -> "One of W3C's primary goals is to make these benefits available to all people, whatever their hardware, software, network infrastructure, native language, culture, geographical location, or physical or mental ability." Perhaps there is work on EME towards solving this issue ? The only thing I've seen so far is the technicality that CDM is not part of the W3C standard. -- Emmanuel Revah http://manurevah.com
Received on Saturday, 6 July 2013 16:35:09 UTC