On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> wrote: > That is clear. It is also clear that there is widespread objections. The > chairs are actively working with W3C Management to determine how best to > proceed. > Does an individual objection have the same weight as a member objection? I have not seen any publicly attributable objections by a member organization posted, though it is possible I have missed them (or they haven't been made public). On the other hand, I have seem quite a number of formal member approvals. If there is a need for further input, perhaps a formal survey, answerable by member organizations would be appropriate. BTW, I'm also a long-time Ubuntu user, so I am also very interested in seeing a solution emerge there. So far, I have seen no technical barrier to an Ubuntu based browser, such as FF, implementing a user-installable CDM extension mechanism that does not require Ubuntu to make a support or licensing decision. Of course, it would be more ideal for CDMs to be available to Ubuntu users under standard open source terms, but the absence of which would not prevent a user from installing a 3rd party supplied CDM (provided the UA supported a CDM add-on mechanism). In my dealings with content owners, e.g., the big six studios, I have generally seen a willingness to entertain the use of any CP system provided they are sufficiently convinced it adequately protects access to their content, whatever their definition of adequate is, and I have observed that their definition of adequate has tended to change over time. G.
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 01:40:39 UTC