Re: The subject line is irrelevant these days

> > It *still* doesn't mean that anyone with an Internet connection can
> > access the content should they choose to spend the time and effort.
> 
> Sure, but that's not something that's achievable given the licensing
> terms.

In which case the W3C shouldn't be working on it.

> > That content is *still* completely broken w.r.t. the open web.
> 
> What I'm saying is just that there's no difference in this respect
> between EME and <object>. The term 'open web' isn't well-enough
> defined for us to make much progress with it. Is <object> part of the
> 'open web' according to your definition ?

Again, it's not my definition, it's the W3Cs.  <object> isn't part of
the open web, as I understand it from that definition.  Content made
available by <object> quite often falls into exactly the same sort of
open-web-breaking category as content restricted by proprietary CDMs.

EME is *worse* than <object>.  Object, at least, had uses that were
compatible with the open web.  EME, on the other hand, does not.

<object> was also helpful before Javascript implementations and browsers
became sufficiently performant.  That, too, has changed.

If I were King, I'd snap my fingers and declare EME out of scope, and
deprecate <object>.

All that said, I don't think the status of <object> has any relevance to
the status of EME, except by the sort of argument that goes "let's make
the same mistake again."

-- 
Duncan Bayne
ph: +61 420817082 | web: http://duncan-bayne.github.com/ | skype:
duncan_bayne

I usually check my mail every 24 - 48 hours.  If there's something
urgent going on, please send me an SMS or call me.

Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 00:51:53 UTC