- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:08:20 -0400
- To: Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>
- CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 7/10/2013 7:16 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > 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? Assuming that the Working Group addresses the issues against the spec and bring it forward to the W3C Director for approval as a W3C Recommendation, he will determine whether it is appropriate for approval as a W3M Recommendation. > > Greetings, > Norbert > FreedomHTML.org
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2013 13:08:31 UTC