Re: Encrypted Media proposal (was RE: ISSUE-179: av_param - Chairs Solicit Alternate Proposals or Counter-Proposals)

2012/3/5 Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>

> 2012/3/5 Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>:
> > On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 00:33:18 -0000, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
> wrote:
> >> It is not required for the spec, but it will be required for practical
> >> deployment in the near term. Change doesn't happen over night, at least
> >> without burning down the town.
> >>
> >> We view a standardized interface to CDMs as an initial step on the path
> to
> >> achieving more openness and more interoperability. It is an enabling
> >> technology.
> >
> > So the HTML spec today is enabled for this, waiting at the end of this
> path.
> > http+aes scheme (ClearKey equivalent) has been added and DRM-free video
> > works already.
> >
> > IMHO the HTML could just wait for content owners to come, instead of
> helping
> > them stay with DRM longer, expand DRM's possibilities, and use a W3C
> > recommendation as an excuse to do so.
>
> Precisely.  We don't need to "burn down the town" (to use your words);
> we just need to maintain the status quo until copyright owners are
> willing to come to the table with more reasonable expectations and use
> the technology we're already providing them.
>

The reasonableness of content owner expectations is not an issue we can
determine here. If you wish to go off and create a restrictive W3C
doppleganger, then feel free to do so. In the mean time, the W3C members
will choose what makes sense for the majority as opposed to a stentorian
minority.