Re: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

I think you're misunderstanding the claim: I'm claiming that restricted
media will likely be viewable on more platforms with EME than with
Flash/Silverlight.


>
> 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.
>

So, it seems the difference between your "perfect" and what we are
proposing is twofold: we propose that the openness (in terms of process)
that the W3C brings will add value to the EME specification and the
expectations around it but this has the side effect of (in your view)
'compromising the role of the W3C'. Is there any way we can get the
benefits of the W3C open process without incurring the impression (to some)
of compromise ?

Honestly, we are more interested in the benefits of the open process than
simply some 'stamp of approval'.

...Mark


>
>
> 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
>
>
>