- From: Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 22:23:26 +0300
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On Mon, 2013-07-08 at 13:00 -0400, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > On 7/6/2013 5:59 AM, Duncan Bayne wrote: > >> Exactly. That's why finding better alternatives is not a valid argument. > >> The debate here is not about DRM being bad or good. The debate is > >> whether this should be a W3C standard or not. > > And, from what we've been told, that was never debated at all, and won't > > be. > > > I'm not sure what you mean when you say that it won't be debated whether > this should be a W3C standard or not. This mailing list houses a fairly > substantial debate: both about whether content protection should be in > scope and also whether EME is an acceptable solution for that scope. I'm glad that this debate is still open. Thank for clarifying this. I think many people on this list think that W3C has already decided that content protection is in scope of W3C.
Received on Monday, 8 July 2013 19:23:49 UTC