Re: The subject line is irrelevant these days

David Singer <singer@apple.com> writes:

> 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".
>

Fortunately, W3C can still reject it because of its primary purpose.

I also don't think "primarily maybe" does it justice. "I can think of
hypothetical cases where someone might use EME for something other than
DRM" is not a reason for W3C to ignore what the actual use will be.

> Nor has anyone proposed a better way. alas.
>

EME is a step backward, so the better way is simply ending work on it,
with explanation that will help guide future proposed recommendations.

-john

-- 
John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS

Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at
<http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096>.

Received on Wednesday, 23 October 2013 01:15:10 UTC