- From: Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:16:21 +0200
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Cc: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org> wrote: > On 7/6/2013 11:20 PM, David Singer wrote: > > In general, saying "I don't like X" doesn't carry much weight in > > any body I know. "I think Y is a better solution for the following > > reasons" gets a whole lot more traction. > > Well said, David. > > Or here is another way to point out the same thing. > > W3C at this point has not accepted the EME spec. It is a draft > specification of a Working Group, that has not yet received Director > approval. > > W3C has said that the requirement is in-scope for the Working Group. > > We have regularly (on this list) invited folks to propose better > solutions to the Working Group. What if the kind of architecture that is pursued in the EME spec is in fact the best possible solution to the stated requirement, but it is still very bad because it is fundamentally incompatible with building an open web and ICT systems that provide a reasonable environment for the protection of human rights? Greetings, Norbert FreedomHTML.org
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 11:16:45 UTC