- From: Andreas Kuckartz <A.Kuckartz@ping.de>
- Date: 1 Jun 2013 12:08:09 +0200
- To: "Leif Halvard Silli" <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Cc: "Steve Faulkner" <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli:
> Steve Faulkner, Fri, 31 May 2013 15:40:38 +0100:
>> a correction
>>
>> "EME can be a
>> standard on its own, separated from and not required for the
>> implementation of standards-compliant HTML."
>>
>> This is the case for the current EME proposal, it is not a requirement for
>> HTML, it is a separate spec. I don't know of any move to include in the
>> core HTML spec and would imagine that such a move would not get consensus.
>
> I think the above is a bit too square since HTML5 has the concept of
> applicable spec. It would only take a sentence or two to include EME by
> reference.
Indeed. And *if* the support of "premium content" and "protected
content" becomes an official element of the HTML WG charter it would be
logical to do that:
"Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML
specification:
additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use
cases such as live events or *premium content*; for example, additions for:
facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions)
supporting playback of *protected content*
adaptive images
additions to the HTML Canvas 2D Context (HTML Canvas 2D Context,
Level 2)
additional new elements and attributes for Web Components"
http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/
Cheers,
Andreas
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 11:08:47 UTC