RE: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

Nikos Roussos wrote:
> 
> Excluding Free Software users is also a technical flaw.

No, it is a decision taken by some users to not use software that does not meet their expectations, for whatever reasons they deem the software unsuitable. The software *does* work, just not in the way you want it to work. That's a philosophical stance, not a technical limitation or flaw. Software solutions that do not meet philosophical requirements are not by extension technically flawed, only (at best) philosophically so.



> >
> > 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

In that posting, you wrote:

 "It's safe to say that there is a consensus among those who object to
EME, that we believe it contradicts with Open Web principles and
therefore W3C's mission. If EME gets approved the most important thing
we'll lose is W3C."

I won't lose the W3C, neither will anyone else: the W3C will continue to exist, and those businesses and individuals that wish to work inside of the W3C will continue to do so. I suspect that most web browsers will also continue to more-or-less implement W3C Standards as they emerge, because they will have had a hand in the creation of those technical standards from the on-set (as is the case with EME today). Standards work is often referred to as sausage making - its messy, and you *really* don't want to know everything that is going on behind the scenes, as long as the sausage that emerges is good.

What *you* might lose is the idea that somehow the W3C is obligated to serve your needs as a citizen and user of the internet. Why you believe you have this right today I do not know, perhaps because the W3C has been as open and accommodating to the public and public feedback as they have been all these years. I am here to suggest that you have perhaps higher expectations than what the W3C can deliver to you. (But then again, I do not speak for, or on behalf of, the W3C - so maybe I'm wrong... but I rarely place anything but safe bets). I also believe that even though you will likely feel betrayed here, that the W3C will continue to do good work, and strive to keep the web as open and free as it can.

What this means for *your* definition of the "Open Web" of course will also remain to be seen. Clearly you will be disappointed, frustrated, disenfranchised, etc., etc. You are free of course to attempt to establish a parallel organization that will attempt to establish standards for your definition of the open internet, and you may, or may not succeed: it will depend I suppose on how much support you will receive from those businesses that are currently funding the work that the W3C does today. If you believe that your vision of the web is so vastly superior to that of the W3C's that you are able to convince all of the browser vendors to walk away from support of the W3C, to completely abandon all work on any form of Content Protection, and to instead collectively work at the Roussos Internet Foundation (or whatever you choose to call your organization), well, then I guess the world will indeed lose the W3C. But I'm not going to worry about that today.

You know, I am really sorry I need to be so brutally honest here... I really hate being the one to point out the obvious.
 
> 
> 
> No new insights have merged. All these valid arguments, that annoy you
> so much mr. Foliot, are yet unanswered.

I am not so much annoyed, as saddened that you cannot understand the obvious: The W3C is funded by its membership, and its membership needs and wants a solution to this problem. Its membership will not accept "nothing" as a solution, and no amount of impassioned philosophical rhetoric will change that. 

I  believe it is the validity of your arguments that are at question: they have certainly been brought forward forcefully and passionately, but to date they alone have not been enough to persuade the W3C to stop working on EME, and without further information, it seems from my vantage point that your arguments, while "valid" in your opinion, have been heard, evaluated, and acted upon. 

Those actions speak for themselves today. 

JF

Received on Saturday, 6 July 2013 20:53:39 UTC