- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:02:49 -0700
- To: John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org>
- Cc: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
On Oct 22, 2013, at 17:59 , John Sullivan <johns@fsf.org> wrote: > Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> writes: > >>> 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 ? >> > > The difference, as has been said I'm sure many times by others before my > randomly interjecting, is that *only* proprietary, non-interoperable, > patented technologies fit the shape of the EME container. Primarily maybe, but no, it's been pointed out many times it's not "only". Nor has anyone proposed a better way. alas. David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 01:03:07 UTC