- From: Milan Zamazal <pdm@zamazal.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 00:20:47 +0200
- To: cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be>
- Cc: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
>>>>> "c" == cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> writes: c> On 2013-10-23 06:11 Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: >> There doesn't seem to be a practical way to get to this result, >> as is painfully obvious. Focusing on working on EME to constrain >> CDMs and other alternatives do seem realistic. Can the >> principled camp in these discussions fall back to practical >> solutions? c> in other words 'are we willing to give up our principals for c> practical gain', and do so in a situation where the 'gain' is c> questionable at best? I agree that a standard excluding some users by definition from accessing Web content is a bad standard. However we can end up with a bad standard or with an even worse standard. I think the choice of explicitly limiting EME to video content would be less damaging and easier to handle in future than making EME a general purpose DRM framework. Making EME applicable only to video content might be a realistic step.
Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 22:22:35 UTC