Sent from my iPhone On May 19, 2013, at 8:09 AM, "piranna@gmail.com" <piranna@gmail.com> wrote: > EME is not part of HTML5, so a browser can choose to not implement and be fully HTML5 compliant. Browsers will make business decisions whether they want EME or not; just as they would make business decisions whether to include DRM or not (irrespective of EME). > I see. So, this made more valid my argument that there will be two kind of browsers, since don't doubt that at least Firefox and Chromium will not implement it, both ideologically or because effort don't compense to do it. It would certainly be bad if services like Netflix were available only in Chrome and IE and not in Firefox. What do you think the W3C should do to help avoid that outcome ? > We have many standards that are not implemented in the OS kernel. > I agree, but working the W3C on a probably future recomended DRM stardard for the browsers is like add a DRM recomendation on POSIX specification, that's totally silly and dangerous. As far as I know, POSIX does not specify a media player. But OS APIs that do provide media playback are a perfectly reasonable place to add DRM support, for example Windows Media Foundation or Android media APIs. We've considered proposing something like EME for OpenMAX AL. In practice, DRM is often implemented by the platform. On mobile phones and increasingly on TVs there are Trusted Execution Environments running a separate OS which provide decryption, decoding and rendering. In these cases, EME just exposes to the web platform what the (main) OS already exposes to apps. If you want the Web Platform to be a competitive OS, you need parity with the competition. ...Mark
Received on Sunday, 19 May 2013 17:36:42 UTC