- From: Alastair Campbell <alastc@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 13:08:16 +0100
- To: Nikos Roussos <comzeradd@mozilla-community.org>
- Cc: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
Nikos Roussos wrote: > Could you elaborate? How a EME/CDM future is better than what's > happening today with flash and silverlight? The support for Flash/Silverlight is waning, and they won't be used on new platforms. CDMs are a smaller thing to create (than a general purpose programming environment) so they are more likely to be implemented across more platforms. The better future aspect is that content distributers who are required to use DRM will have a means to do it. (For me that is maintaining status quo more than being better, but anyway...) > On the technological aspect, if a Standard can't be implemented in Free > Software then it's not *Open* Standard and thus can't be considered part > of the Open Web. I would consider it an 'open standard' because the process is open and no-one is prevented from using it by the standards body. It might not be part of the 'open web' by your definition, but that doesn't make it a closed standard. (We need to divide 'open' into a couple of different terms!) However, this isn't really the burning question. Given that EME is *already* being implemented, should the W3C be where it is speced? Henri Sivonen wrote: > Firefox seeks to maintain feature parity in terms of what's exposed > to the Web across the different desktop platforms even when > proprietary system facilities are used So if EME because popular and MS/OSX/Ubuntu implemented usable CDMs, would Firefox then use EME? -Alastair
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 12:08:49 UTC