Re: Trust

Oh, good, then he didn't know what was to come upon leting the door open to
"protected content".

I'm sorry, but that is hard to believe.


2013/10/18 Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>

>  On 10/18/2013 10:57 AM, Fred Andrews wrote:
>
>
> Yes, we see their statements claiming that they have 'not taken a
> position'.
>
> We also see their actions.  Tim has personally dictated that the EME
> advance, and has dictated the form of the spec that has advanced.  The EME
> is not a product of an open process, but a spec dictated by a narrow select
> group.  The EME is Tim's specification, not the open webs specification.
>
>
> Tim has stated that content protection is "in scope" for the HTML working
> group.  He has not taken any position on the EME spec.
>
>
>
> Sorry I do not consider this 'taking no position'.
>
> Stop claiming that the EME being advanced has any legitimacy as an open
> standard.
>
> cheers
> Fred
>
>  ------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:15:04 -0700
> From: watsonm@netflix.com
> To: pdm@zamazal.org
> CC: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Trust
>
>
>   I do feel bound to point out what Jeff and the staff have repeatedly
> said which is the W3C has not taken a position on whether EME should be
> approved or not. The topic is in scope (and, btw, it's always a big ask to
> suggest that a topic isn't even *discussed*), but that doesn't mean we will
> find an acceptable solution. The much more significant decision will be
> whether to approve the EME specification. At this point W3C will have to
> decide whether the issues raised against the specification have been
> sufficiently addressed. Since I expect there is likely to be a Formal
> Objection to any approval by the Working Group then it will be the director
> who decides on this (IIUC).
>
>
>
>
>