Re: Campaign for position of chair and mandate to close this community group

On Jan 13, 2014, at 12:45 , Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> 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.

Might be good to get a summary of the ‘story so far’ started, maybe on a wiki?  It might help us stop going around and around, and make progress?
> 

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Monday, 13 January 2014 20:51:24 UTC