Re: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

On 2013/06/28 17:15, Mark Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:37 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
> wrote:


> Indeed. Anyone can implement a content protection system that works
> with their own content and either ship it in their own browser or try
> to get other browsers to ship it. We _could_ recommend that browsers
> support pluggable downloadable CDMs to facilitate this, but it's been
> argued that a confusing array of installable plugins is exactly what
> we _don't_ want (and I agree).


Actually, that could be one thing that could decrease the sentiment of 
exclusion, pluggable downloadable CDMs. This could create confusion to 
certain users, but on the other hand it would allow non-business type 
structures to reach a larger audience while also benefitting from 
content restriction functionality.

Actually 2 (the return of the Actually), I am divided on this. On one 
side, without pluggable downloadable CDMs, content restriction becomes a 
functionality reserved mainly to businesses, unless the website uses a 
default and Open Source CDM that may be included with all browsers 
(which may void functionality).

On the other side, allowing any website to offer a CDM to their visitor 
could be an invitation to users being abused by malicous websites, yet 
it would allow more users to implement EME.




[..]
>> Please, name those systems. I keep hearing this, and keep wondering
>> which OSes, outside of Linux, are going to have an issue here? And
>> even with Linux, the issue is not technical, its philosophical.
>> Standards aren't philosophies, their standards.
> 
>  I've already mentioned this somewhere but here are a few examples of
> possible configurations that may never be supported (in each case the
> user has the latest version of Firefox and Chromium and is willing to
> accept CDMs on their system):
> 
>  - FreeBSD / Arm
>  - ReactOS / amd64
>  - Linux / Sparc
> 
>  The list goes on. These setups exist, they are not exotic, and
> mostly, today these setups have no issues with the current set of
> standards.
> 
>  Pre-emptive counter argument: Yes Flash and Silverlight may not work
> for these, but they are not standards either.
> 
> My expectation is that EME CDMs will get wider system support than
> Flash and Silverlight. You're argument is that because we can't
> guarantee universal system support we should do nothing. I think this
> is a case of "the perfect is the enemy of the good".

(btw, I must correct myself, some setups may be exotic, however they 
should be able to implement standards and shouldn't be excluded only 
because of the CPU they use...)

Flash and Silverlight are not W3C standards, in that regards they don't 
need to subscribe to W3C policies/ethics/etc.

My argument is that EME is by design a standard that will naturally 
close the web to certain platforms. Including it in the W3C seems wrong 
because of that. The worst part is that EME proponents claim it will 
make compatibility easier and reach out further, this is a false claim 
and should be retracted.

The reality is that EME is a spec that allows a website to exclude 
access to certain platforms, intentionally or not, and no matter how 
much the client side is compliant to W3C standards.


The "perfect" (within reason) would be that EME be developed as a 
standard outside of the W3C and users could install a plugin or browsers 
could ship with EME as it is already the case. This would avoid 
compromising the role of the W3C and would allow for you to guys to move 
on from Flash and friends.


As for this:
> Put another way, vegetarians will never be customers at a steakhouse.
> That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with being a vegetarian or
> running a steakhouse or that either should be expected to change.


I think a better example would be; Most people who eat food don't mind 
eating meat, if we can make meat that is organic and "open" and so on we 
could still label it "vegetarian meat". Vegetarians wouldn't have to eat 
it, they could just ignore it, but vegetarian restaurants could include 
it on their menus and products that use this meat could label their food 
as "vegetarian".





-- 
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com

Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 16:10:09 UTC