- From: Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:45:39 -0800
- To: Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>, public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
> It is not clear to me why there is a significant distinction (in respect of > the other issues in this thread) between "native browser plugin" and > "CDM". Because the CDM requires EME to operate. Thus, in order to support a CDM, the W3C will have to allow into the standard a specification that has one purpose only: to interoperate with closed-source, proprietary binaries that (as has been pointed *many* times on this list by myself and others) are entirely inimical to the open web. To be clear though, I agree that all of the issues you've raised are problematic from the perspective of the end user. The issue that I and others have, though, is that the EME + CDM solution harms the Open Web. We have presented *numerous* alternatives, and you and others have knocked them all back as being unacceptable to content owners. -- 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 Monday, 13 January 2014 20:46:02 UTC