- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 22:45:55 -0700
- To: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Cc: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On Jul 6, 2013, at 22:38 , Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote: >> And reject all the content that the owners are unwilling (or unable, for >> contractual reasons) to offer without it. There is a baby with this >> bathwater, you know. > > As John and others have pointed out, the W3C rejecting EME will hardly > stop interested companies from going ahead with it. In fact, several > have already. The difference is that the W3C won't have to compromise > its principles and mission. nor will high-value content be accessible through the web, referencable through URLs, accessible using web accessibility techniques, stylable using user style-sheets, or a lot of other things. do you really think there are no consequences? that other principles won't suffer if you only look at this one? "our principles are that one only eats organic food; unfortunately, there isn't enough available to feed everyone, and we've decided everyone will be a little malnourished" "we will only stock this library with books no-one objects to on any principle. if you find the contents bland and unappealing, we have decided this is the price you will pay for purity of content" and so on. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Sunday, 7 July 2013 05:46:21 UTC