- From: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 17:18:21 -0400
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 10/09/2013 05:01 PM, Duncan Bayne wrote: >> What do you mean by "go forward"? The working group is entitled to >> proceed with its efforts to develop an extension specification, as the >> discussion is in-scope for HTML. Whether it gets approved as a W3C >> Recommendation -- and how it gets changed or improved along the way -- >> are still open questions. This group is part of the ongoing discussion. > > Sorry, perhaps I should have been more specific. > > 'Content protection' was decided as being in-scope without any > consultation, and I've been told be several people (including the CEO, > if I understand him correctly) that that decision was made before any > public consultation on EME, and is not itself up for consultation or > debate. > That scope was brought before the W3C advisory committee in the HTML charter, and saying it's "in scope" only says the discussion may take place, it doesn't predict an outcome of the discussion. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wseltzer@w3.org +1.617.715.4883 (office) Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) http://wendy.seltzer.org/ +1.617.863.0613 (mobile)
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 21:18:22 UTC