23342 2013-09-24 14:50:17 +0000 The user should be in control of its own computing 2013-10-15 15:18:19 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG Encrypted Media Extensions unspecified PC Linux RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 mhysterio adrianba ddorwin mike pal public-html-media watsonm public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 93727 0 mhysterio 2013-09-24 14:50:17 +0000 Under the "goals" section there is another line wich worries me. "The user agent should not select among content decryption and protection options. The application should make this decision." I think here "user agent" has a "user" part, so you deny the user to have knowledge about the method being used to "protect" the content? If I ever were to use this EME, I'd like to know about binary files (CDM) being downloaded and executed on my computer. So this is unacceptable either. 93729 1 watsonm 2013-09-24 15:03:21 +0000 This comment is based on a mis-understanding. It is absolutely not intended that EME applications cause new code to be downloaded to the user's computer. In fact one of the main motivations for the work is to *avoid* an install step. The sentence quoted is intended to mean that if a User Agent supports multiple keysystems then the application should be able to choose from amongst these already installed systems. Users can, of course, enable/disable/uninstall keysystems, if such capabilities are offered by the User Agent. So, that is, the application may choose from amongst the keysystems that the user / user agent offers. I suggest we reword the sentence in question as follows: "The application shall be able to choose between the content protection options offered by the User Agent." 93769 2 mhysterio 2013-09-25 00:13:45 +0000 Again this is against my principles. The UA shouldn't be allowed to have CDM inside. Because not all people is going to watch EME protected content. So why should we allow such extra code we haven't control of? So CDM should be added only whenever the user is going to need it. 94669 3 ddorwin 2013-10-14 17:55:06 +0000 I propose removing the Goals section. It has repeatedly led to confusion and does not belong in a spec (it is left over from the initial proposal). 94733 4 mike 2013-10-15 07:05:11 +0000 (In reply to Julio Cesar Serrano from comment #0) > Under the "goals" section there is another line wich worries me. > > "The user agent should not select among content decryption and > protection options. The application should make this decision." (In reply to Mark Watson from comment #1) > I suggest we reword the sentence in question as follows: > > "The application shall be able to choose between the content protection > options offered by the User Agent." (In reply to David Dorwin from comment #3) > I propose removing the Goals section. It has repeatedly led to confusion and > does not belong in a spec (it is left over from the initial proposal). Given that it's non-normative section, the decision about what to do with it is an editorial decision. There's nothing implementable in that section, and nothing testable nor documentable -- so removing it would not substantively affect the spec in any way that would require re-review from, e.g., UA implementors, nor require anyone to have to re-write test cases, etc. 94772 5 adrianba 2013-10-15 15:15:04 +0000 This was discussed on the telcon 10/15: http://www.w3.org/2013/10/15-html-media-minutes.html The group agreed to remove the goals section. 94776 6 adrianba 2013-10-15 15:18:19 +0000 Removed the goals section: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/rev/a5acef5bbe69