- From: Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org>
- Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 19:35:32 +0300
- To: 'public-restrictedmedia' <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 08:39 -0700, John Foliot wrote: > Nikos Roussos wrote: > > > > > If that is not what you are expecting to hear from a standards body, > > > then please sir, do tell us what you expect is going to happen here? > > > > I expect EME to be rejected. A proposal about a standard on a W3C > > working group doesn't always has to lead to standard or a technical > > recommendation. We may have to accept that a proposal is just not good > > enough. > > > > First, EME is not yet a W3C Recommendation, it is at the very beginning of that process however, and that status and this process has been ruled in scope by the Director of the Consortium. If there are *technical reasons* why this specification is flawed, this is the time to bring them forward. If you have moral objections (which apparently you have), they have been heard and will be considered by the Working Group (and presumably the Director) at some point, and a decision will be rendered. I am fairly confident that as part of that review and consultation, the Director will consult with the membership of the W3C as well (via the Advisory Committee), where the perspectives and points of view of the companies affected by that decision will also have an opportunity to be heard and reviewed. (As I have also previously noted, the public does not get a "vote" here). Excluding Free Software users is also a technical flaw. > Assuming however that your arguments prevail, and the W3C does not make this a W3C Recommendation, what practical purpose will this serve? Do you think that EME will disappear? That Content Management tools will vanish into thin air? You will have scored, at best, a paper victory, which, as part of that victory, any public feedback loop on this topic that currently exists at the W3C will vanish, and those businesses that will choose to implement "a system" will do so anyway. Only this time, they will not have to answer to any public scrutiny. > > Meanwhile, you will have diluted the W3C's reputation as *the* place to work on web standards, as it will appear now to be a standards body that makes decisions, not on technical merit, but on softer political stances that do not share unanimous support. > > You will have succeeded in neutering the W3C. We agree that this would have an impact on W3C's future, but we read this very differently http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2013Jun/0293.html > Mr. Roussos and others, feel free to make a lot of noise and reject EME (et al) on principle. I suspect at this time however that your arguments have reached the point of being nothing more than repetitions of the same old, same old, as no new information or insight has emerged on this list in weeks now. If you choose to not follow the advice of the CEO and others directly involved at the W3C on how to *really* affect change here, I suspect that your results at the end of this process will be that you will be left empty-handed, and that your opportunity to have any significant involvement in the crafting of "a" solution (any solution) will have been squandered on moral chest-thumping. No new insights have merged. All these valid arguments, that annoy you so much mr. Folliot, are yet unanswered. -- Nikos Roussos http://roussos.cc
Received on Saturday, 6 July 2013 16:35:56 UTC