- From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:45:26 -0800
- To: Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch>
- Cc: Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Markus Demmel <az@zankapfel.org>, "public-restrictedmedia@w3.org" <public-restrictedmedia@w3.org>
People effectively profile HTML all the time — there are ‘rolling edges’ of what is implemented and used, and what is falling out of use and being removed from implementations. If DRM is not used by content owners, not implemented by browsers, or not supported by customers, it will die. Having a formal spec that differs from the w3c one only in that it doesn’t include EME doesn’t seem to change the balance at all. On Jan 15, 2014, at 8:41 , Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote: > Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > >>> 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. >> >> Agreed, profiling is a different beast. That might have been what the >> OP actually had in mind. > > There's an effort to develop a profile spec, and promote it, underway > already at http://FreedomHTML.org/ > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > David Singer Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 16:45:54 UTC