- From: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:14:37 -0700
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> For (3) it's reasonable - and not insane - to challenge those who say the > proposal is not good enough to make their own proposal that is better. To quote Thomas Sowell: "No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: “But what would you replace it with?” When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?" It may not be insane to challenge opponents of EME to come up with a better proposal, but such a challenge is entirely orthogonal to the issue of whether the W3C should adopt EME as a recommendation. If those opposed to EME can prove, as I believe we have, that EME is inimical to the stated mission of the W3C, then that ought to be enough to scupper EME. As an analogy: consider what happens when one challenges an unconstitutional law. The challenger is not required to provide an alternative implementation of the requirements of the authors of the bill; if the law is unconstitutional it is repealed, and it is up to anyone with a stake in the matter to sponsor a new bill. -- Duncan Bayne ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype: duncan_bayne I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours. If there's something urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me at the above number.
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2013 22:14:58 UTC