- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 20:02:58 -0500
- To: "B. Ross Ashley" <brashley46@tfnet.ca>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 11/24/2013 8:46 PM, B. Ross Ashley wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 13-11-24 02:35 PM, JF wrote: >> Duncan, the Director has already stated that Content Protection is >> in scope, > FOR DISCUSSION. If this is not discussion, what is? Or is the outcome > of the discussion pre-determined by his decision that it is in scope > for discussion? To clarify (again). Content Protection is in scope for the HTML Working Group. EME is the WG's current proposed solution. The current draft has issues associated with it. The Director has not reviewed or approved EME. > The pro-DRM folks keep insisting that TBL's > declaration that content protection is in scope FOR DISCUSSION means > that the decision about whether or not to implement this browser > standard has already been made, and the only permissible discussion is > HOW. > > I call BS. > > - -- > B. Ross Ashley > registered Linux user 548111 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSkqvuAAoJEFWSUDbPLxNGuZIIAMEvcDEG8oZqPGRQ4l+H3LVD > 4JxH62rMfdBKFSixf6pcQp/tuQXDULIIG+Fq1Z5uv66T6c88wFdnFxctCdzc5308 > W0queGKB4Ghj8fv6aFveiXeGONb/8on8nH7S3IkFdY/vRiBGSXb3AAGShHLu4yb9 > a9bpbiIh8zAgQb21fHuz3umskuxhB25JY3N7QlXQGlYi6hX2uytfAYydiIMxFUrn > lKXXEIq3+x+jMkht9bleBPk0pFegJP5+d+0jOo+kLyMXkWNIeHQ3m3GEI6RPQgVd > 1aWtzCzQvr/Jxd8yF+XxHdpxYZ5XHf1UlkKmoku9Rp7hKaPBJz4/VeSSxhOD6X8= > =Ndc3 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2013 01:03:04 UTC