Re: What change could we make? (was Re: Letter on DRM in HTML)

On 6/26/2013 3:22 PM, piranna@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Likewise, W3C might recommend that people use unprotected <video> 
> instead of EME, if they have a choice, but that doesn't mean we 
> shouldn't work on EME.
> >
> That would be a fairly inteligent advice from W3C, at least it would 
> try to prevent to be used EME by everybody also when it was not 
> required, for example on free-to-view content available by everybody 
> just because is easy to add DRM to all files in batch instead of pay 
> atention to allow free access to this content. If that paragraph is 
> added to the specification, count with my +1 :-)
>
I'm looking for common ground so I want to see if I understand your +1, 
above.

Can I interpret that to mean that you are supportive of a W3C spec which:

  * Provides EME as a standard
  * Includes a statement of the form: "W3C prefers that content not be
    protected with DRM systems, however, if a non-standard DRM solution
    is chosen, W3C recommends that EME be used as a common, open means
    to access the DRM system."

?

Jeff

Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 22:05:12 UTC