Re: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Nikos Roussos <
comzeradd@mozilla-community.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 13:50 -0700, John Foliot wrote:
> > 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.
>
> No, it is a technological flow because excluding Free Software users you
> lose interoperability, another W3C's principle that contradicts with
> EME.
>

Only we don't _have_ interoperability for this content with Free Software
platforms today. We can't lose something we don't have.

The most you can say is that this proposal doesn't solve the problem of
making this content available to Free Software platforms. But this is not
something the W3C _can_ solve and it's definitely not a technical problem
(all solutions I can see involve either content providers changing their
license terms or Free Software users changing their principled stance
against proprietary code, neither of which are technical solutions. A
problem which has no conceivable technical solution cannot be described as
a technical problem).


>
> > > >
> > > > 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, (...).
>
> Of course it will continue to exist. But it would be irrelevant in the
> Open Web world.
>
>
The purpose of the W3C is to make the web better. Are you saying that if
the W3C chooses to make one part of the web better (the part involving
protected content) then its ability to make other parts of the web better
suddenly vanishes ? How so ?

...Mark