- From: HU, BIN <bh526r@att.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 14:06:20 +0000
- To: JC Verdié <jc.verdie@mstarsemi.com>
- CC: Web & TV IG <public-web-and-tv@w3.org>
JC, Thank you, and I made the changes in [1] (and re-phrased it a little it). Cheers Bin [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Download#Download_and_Go -----Original Message----- From: JC Verdié [mailto:jc.verdie@mstarsemi.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:27 PM To: HU, BIN Cc: Web & TV IG Subject: Re: [apis] Download and Go use case Hi Bin Yes you understood correctly :) Regards JC On 15 mai 2013, at 22:24, "HU, BIN" <bh526r@att.com> wrote: > Hello JC, > > Thank you for your comments, and those are very valuable to improve our use cases and hence the requirement. > > I have made the changes of your first 2 comments, i.e. transferring media and accounting the number of coexisting instances. Please see [1]. > > With regard to your 3rd comment, i.e. "+ a method for accessing to file access validity (including an offline clearance method)", I am not quite sure if I understand it correctly. Do you mean that the offline storage of the content should only be valid for a limited lifecycle, e.g. 24 hours? Once the time expires, the content storage should be cleared? > > Thank you > Bin > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Download#Download_and_Go > > -----Original Message----- > From: JC Verdié [mailto:jc.verdie@mstarsemi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:39 AM > To: Web & TV IG > Subject: [apis] Download and Go use case > > Dear TF, > > I have a few comments on the Download and Go use case [1]: Some content > providers (or content owners) do not allow multiple instances of the > same protected content to coexist. For instance if you rent a movie on > iTunes from your computer and decide to watch it on your iPad, you will > have to "transfer" it. The movie being now visible on the iPad but not > anymore on the computer. On the same vein of constraints, other media > can coexit in multiple but limited places (e.g. only X copies of the > same protected file). I appreciate that these constraints probably fall > in EME's basket but I feel uncomfortable with not seeing them in the use > case description. > > I would suggest the following modifications on the use case (lines > starting with a +) > > Requirements: > > Download > A method of referencing video sources for download, e.g. using anchor > elements with the download attribute. > Content protection > Ability to store video content in a protected format, as applicable. > Ability to view previously stored protected video content, e.g. via the > HTML5 Encrypted Media Extensions > + Ability to transfer media in a single operation (not copy-then-delete) > + Ability to account & verify the number of coexisting instances of the > media > > Storage > An adequately-sized storage medium; at least enough to store several > full movies, e.g. 32GB > A method of accessing the storage medium to save videos, e.g. > For local filesystem storage, the File Writer API > For browser-internal storage, the IndexedDB API > + a method for accessing to file access validity (including an offline > clearance method) > > Playback > A method of accessing the storage medium for video playback, e.g. > The File API > IndexedDB API > Ability to view previously stored video content, e.g. via > The HTML5 video element using a reference to a locally-stored file, > provided through the File API > The HTML5 video element using a reference to a video stored in > browser-internal storage, and accessed via the IndexedDB API > Ability to view previously stored protected video content, e.g. via the > HTML5 Encrypted Media Extensions > > Regards, > JC > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/webtv/wiki/Download#Download_and_Go > > > >
Received on Thursday, 16 May 2013 14:07:19 UTC