Re: W3C HTML Fork without Digital Restriction Management

On 15.01.2014 18:41, Mark Watson wrote:
> 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
i was thinking more in a "bottom-up"-approch, meaning that it should be 
transparent to the viewer of a webpage if there is a risk of running 
closed source-code binaries.

The Approval of the W3C (like http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-xhtml10 ) 
has become somehow flawed, since the validator won't complain, if one 
uses the extensions as specified. If you are concerned what code runs on 
your platform, a simple way to reassure it, would be a profile that 
tells you exactly that. And from my current knowledge, a W3C logo won't 
tell me that in the future.

>
>
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch 
> <mailto:nb@bollow.ch>> wrote:
>
>     Am Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:45:26 -0800
>     schrieb David Singer <singer@apple.com <mailto: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
>     <mailto:nb@bollow.ch>> wrote:
>     >
>     > > Olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk
>     <mailto: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.
>     >
>     >
>
>
>