Re: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

John Foliot:
> 1) Members of the W3C are working on an open API - EME - that will
> allow for a standardized implementation of CDM support in the
> browsers. It is acknowledged that *at this time* commercial CDMs are
> "closed" and proprietary.

That should enough reason to halt all work on EME immediately.

> 2) The W3C management have continually stated that the director of
> the W3C has ruled that work on EME is in scope for the HTML5 Working
> Group.

It is not exactly clear what the director of the W3C has ruled. As far
as I know he ruled about "content protection" being in scope, without
defining that term. But we do not even have a common understanding
regarding "Open Web Platform" and "Open Standards".

> This work is at the beginning of the W3C Recommendation process, but
> has not yet emerged as a W3C "standard".

Thanks for agreeing that Netflix is publicly misrepresenting the situation.

> 4) The only people making *demands* at this time are you and others
> opposed to Digital Rights Management. You are demanding that the W3C
> not do standards work that is perfectly legitimate, legal and desired
> by members of the W3C.

EME is not an "open" standard (at least according the the definition of
that term published by the OSI).

>> So what other W3C standards can't be implemented in Free Software?
>
> The <object> element (http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html5-20110525
> /the-iframe-element.html#the-object-element) allows for the embedding
> of non-html content inside of a web document, including content such
> as Flash and Silverlight that is not "Free Software".

It is questionable if <object> today would again be accepted by the W3C
HTML WG.

Anyway: Relevant Open Source projects exist: Gnash, Swfdec and Lightspark.

> The <video> and <audio> elements allow for the use of non-open codecs
> such as MP3 and MP4(H.264) -

"allow for" is different from "at this time are closed and proprietary".
Websites interested in reaching all users make videos available in H.264
and WebM format.

> a codec that Mozilla acknowledges is not "open" (encumbered format),
> but that they will support (especially on the mobile platform) -
> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2012/03/video-mobile-and-the-open-web/

It is widely known that Google betrayed the Open Source community by not
dropping support for H.264 as it had announced.

DRM is worse than a patent encumbered video format. Patent documents at
least are accessible to the general public.

> If you want a Free Software instance of DRM, you or
> others should produce one for evaluation.
> There is a time for talking, and a time for doing.
> It is now time for the doing - so please, go do it.

I am as interested in that as in designing a perpetuum mobile. If
proponents of EME like to spend time on that they certainly can do so.
Maybe they should start with a specification - but that seems to be out
of scope for the W3C.

> In the colloquial, it's time to fish or cut bait. The ball is firmly
in your court.

You seem to participate in a different game.

Cheers,
Andreas

Received on Thursday, 11 July 2013 07:53:52 UTC