- 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