Re: CfC: to publish Encrypted Media Extensions specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

Hi Glenn,

I understand that this topic has raised passions on all sides. However, our discussion guidelines say, among other things:
* Tone of messages must be maintained at the highest level of professionalism; flaming, sarcasm, or personal attacks will not be tolerated.
* Don't attack a person. Disagree with an idea.
* Respect the right of others to disagree.
* Be polite and show respect. If you have nothing new, positive, informative or helpful to say, refrain from sharing it.
<http://www.w3.org/html/wg/wiki/DiscussionGuidelines>

You usually do a good job engaging politely, so I hope it is clear to you after thinking about it that this email is over the line.

In particular, if Rob's signature block seems out of place to you, then you can ask him privately, or if that fails, ask the Chairs privately to deal with it. Attacking his personal beliefs on the list is not the right way to do it and does not maintain the right tone.

Please try harder to ensure that your future communication on this thread is up to  our expected standards of professionalism and courtesy.

Thanks,
Maciej (HTML WG Co-Chair)

On Jan 30, 2013, at 7:27 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> So, you want to insist on a higher bar for CDMs than other modularizable components? For example, there are no similar requirements for things like:
> uri scheme/url protocol handlers
> image decoders
> video decoders
> audio decoders
> font decoders
> 
> I do expect URIs, image, media and font formats used on the Web to be fully specified somewhere, and that is standard practice today.
> 
> And CDMs will be fully specified somewhere as well.
>  
> 
> input method editors
> geolocation devices
> 
> These do not affect interop.
> 
> Yes they do.
>  
> While it is reasonable to define a voluntary registry, it is not reasonable to require registration or to require that documentation be fully open. Who would enforce this even if it were defined?
> 
> Whoever maintains the registry.
> 
> No registry I'm aware of does such a thing. You are naive to believe it feasible.
>  
> 
> It is reasonable for particular UA vendors to impose their own business requirements on integrable components. It is not reasonable to dictate that all UAs follow the same policy.
> 
> It is reasonable for the W3C to impose requirements on its own specifications in order to maximise interoperability. Vendors who don't like are not required to participate.
> 
> You are wrong. It is not the role of the W3C to dictate the uses of its specifications.
>  
> 
> 
> Rob
> -- 
> Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave — just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” [Matthew 20:25-28]
> 
> Can you keep this religious rubbish off of this technical mail list please. Go to church if you want to talk to your god.
> 
>