Re: W3C HTML Fork without Digital Restriction Management

Since EME is proposed to be a separate "Extension specification", isn't
what you are looking for just the existing HTML5 and HTML5.1 specifications
?

...Mark


On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote:

> Am Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:45:26 -0800
> schrieb David Singer <singer@apple.com>:
>
> > 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.
>
> I'm not talking about that kind of thing, but about a more formal kind
> of profile specification drafted by a public interest oriented community
> process.
>
> There is, IMO at least, a strong need to have an answer (which is as
> precise and authoritative as possible) to the question about the
> markup language format and features that are appropriate to use in
> websites that are intended to be part of the “open web” (understood in
> a way that in particular does not discriminate against FOSS).
>
> I had expected the W3C process to be providing this answer, but since
> this seems to be not the case (if W3C continues on the path on which it
> seems to be, it will provide a superset of this answer, but not the
> answer itself), it appears that it is necessary to formalize a profile
> spec elsewhere.
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree that by itself, a formal profile spec (or any other kind of
> formal spec that addresses the problem) will achieve little.
>
> However if EME (and/or a follow-up further step downwards on the
> slippery slope of increasing proprietarization of the web
> platform) turns out to be dangerously successful in the marketplace,
> and it becomes evident that political efforts are necessary and
> appropriate to safeguard the public interest, it will be incredibly
> important to already have a precise spec that can be referenced
> in the context of such political efforts.
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
>
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
>
>