- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:37:14 -0400
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net>
- CC: W3C DRM/EME Mailing List <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On 6/17/2013 9:16 AM, Karl Dubost wrote: > Jeff, > > Jeff Jaffe [2013-06-17T09:06]: >> Working Group might determine that EME is the best or only solution that meets the requirements. > I might have missed it during the discussions, but could you share the requirements document URI? > Thanks. > I'll let Mark comment whether [1] is the most up to date statement, but I believe that it is. While it references "support of agreements with content owners", it does not define a specific agreement text with a specific content owner. In my view it leaves open the possibility of a consensus to use a different regime for content protection, as I've indicated earlier in the thread. Additionally, it has several other degrees of freedom to allow for a full exploration of the design space including the opening disclaimer (point 2 - requirements are not perfect) and point 6 - open source browser requirement. [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/MPTF#Content_Protection
Received on Monday, 17 June 2013 13:37:20 UTC