Re: Formal Objection to Working Group Decision to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

Steve Faulkner, Sat, 1 Jun 2013 11:33:24 +0100:
> A sentence or two does not make it an implementation requirement for HTML5 

That depends on the sentence.
 
> Which of the other separate specs being developed by the  HTML 
> working group are required to be implemented  by user agents for 
> HTML5?

ARIA is not developed by the HTML Working Group, but I don’t think that 
is important: [1]

“Authors may use the ARIA role and aria-* attributes on HTML elements, 
in accordance with the requirements described in the ARIA 
specifications”

I am just advocating a (IMO) more nuanced view on whether it matter if 
EME is included in the main spec, or not. That’s all.

Hypothetic: With regard to your claim that there would not be agreement 
to include EME in the main spec, perhaps that’s a reason to include it 
- because it then would be turned into something agreeable.

[1] http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/dom.html#wai-aria

-- 
leif halvard silli

Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 11:48:39 UTC