Re: W3C HTML Fork without Digital Restriction Management

On 1/15/2014 10:43 AM, Olivier Thereaux wrote:
> On 14 Jan 2014, at 22:07, Markus Demmel <az@zankapfel.org> wrote:
>
>> Or in programmers terms: a fork? (maybe with some later added specs from the W3C)
> Before anyone gets enthusiastic about the idea: please remember the significant difference between forking open source software and forking an open standard.

I have not heard about any objections from the Free Software Community 
about any of the Open Web Platform (OWP) specs other than EME.

Accordingly, a subset of the OWP which removes EME would more accurately 
be characterized as a "profile" of the OWP, rather than a fork of the OWP.

>
> A fork of the web platform means a world of interoperability issues. Think: browser wars. It is hard to see how that can be a better option than an interoperable web platform which includes unpleasant features or badly designed components.
>
> Interoperability, not purity is the main objective of an open standard. A fork should always, always be the worst case scenario.
>
> Thanks,
> —
> Olivier
>
>
> -----------------------------
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
> may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
> If you have received it in
> error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the
> information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
> immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
> sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to
> this.
> -----------------------------
>

Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 15:58:52 UTC