Re: What is the "open web" ?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:48 PM, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net> wrote:

>
> Le 4 juin 2013 à 00:17, Mark Watson a écrit :
>> I think it's clear that the W3C specifications have to be implementable RF. I am talking about the case where those APIs rely (explicitly or effectively) on underlying system capabilities that are not part of the W3C specification.
>
> Understood. Let's see.
>
> For example the <video> element is used to play a video. The video format is orthogonal to the functionality. People may use things such as H264, ogg/theora, etc. It is an issue because for some developers (opensource and non open), they would not have the money to implement the support for some of the formats, but let's say manageable. W3C is looking for an encumbered format (difficult task).
>
> In the past, the main formats for images were GIF and JPEG. GIF has been an issue when Compuserve started to claim its patent rights. The consequences led small developers (opensource and non open) to abandon the development of their software because they could not pay the license fees. It also led to the creation of PNG (the first W3C spec ever published) to be able to have a format with similar features (non destructive compression, transparency, etc.)
>
> In the system which is being discussing, currently, will it be **usable** by itself and/or in a combination with at least one open counterpart.

Since the EME spec doesn't specify the CDMs, someone could certainly
create an open CDM (for whatever definition of open they prefer) and
EME would work with that.

The question then is whether that would be useful to anyone, or used
by anyone. That depends on the properties of that CDM and the
requirements of the owners of the content in question. It is not
ultimately a technical question. From what I understand today, a FOSS,
fully user-modifiable CDM would not meet the requirements of the major
Hollywood studios, for example, but that does not necessarily imply
would be useless.

>
>
> PS: I will repeat it once again. We spend far too much time debating a system with no consensus, instead of trying to create something that would be compatible with an open Web platform. I usually prefer a choice which enables activities (in the respect of every members of the communities) than something which restricts the majority of the community.

Make a proposal then! Believe me, if I knew of a solution that met
everyone's requirements, I would propose it right away.

...Mark
>
> --
> Karl Dubost
> http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
>

Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 21:09:22 UTC