Re: 'contrary to principles'

On 7/5/2013 1:48 PM, David Singer wrote:
> I have a question for this group.  We've heard that EME is 'contrary to our principles', but I am not actually sure that we have a very clear agreement on what those principles are.  I think it might be good to step back and ask what they are, and then we can see in what way, and degree, we are violating some.  It might point out a better road ahead (maybe).
>
> Here's an attempt at four.  I am sure I missed some.  Some I put up here mostly because I think they are sometimes implied, but as you'll see, I am not sure they hold very well.
>
> 1) Royalty-free.  Easy one;  quoting the patent policy "In order to promote the widest adoption of Web standards, W3C seeks to issue Recommendations that can be implemented on a Royalty-Free (RF) basis."
>
> (I think EME as-is is on track to meet this.)
>
> 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.  Which leads to the next candidate.
>
> 3) No back-end.  Another implied principle is that the specs are 'complete', and that no lower functionality is needed for them to do something useful.  (In the case of EME, that would be the protection system).
>
> Again, I am not sure we do well at meeting this one, if it exists;  obvious places are interfaces to audio (what do you do on a terminal with no audio capability?), OpenGL, and other specs that are there precisely to provide a bridge to something 'outside'.  If web sites depend on these, and your terminal doesn't have the required back-ends, you may be out of luck.
>
> 4) Open-source.  I think there is an implication that W3C recommendations can be, maybe are, all implemented in open-source.  I think they are implementable there, but actually the W3C doesn't even have a requirement for reference code (unlike, say, ISO), let alone that there be open-source implementation.  (The reference code from other bodies is generally made available free of charge to conforming implementations).  I actually find little evidence that the W3C is an 'open source' body.
>
> * * * *

In [1], I tried to address some related questions - what is the Open Web 
Platform, as well as provided references to previous discussions on the 
topic.

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-restrictedmedia/2013Jun/0397.html

>
>
> I actually think (2/3) are the ones that EME stretches the most; it allows for the creation of sites that depend on an external module (the DRM system), and it's under the control of the DRM vendor to decide which platforms to make that available on.  This is much akin to Flash, though as I have noted elsewhere, the 'footprint' here is smaller (just DRM, not the codec, interactivity, rendering, layup, and so on).  But a smaller footprint is not a zero footprint, and you either have specs that meet this (hypothetical, at the moment) principle, or they don't.
>
>
> What other candidates for principles do we have, and in how well do we (in general, and in specific with EME) adhere to them?
>
>
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>

Received on Saturday, 6 July 2013 22:33:53 UTC