On 10/18/2013 10:57 AM, Fred Andrews wrote:
Yes, we see their statements claiming that they have 'not taken a
position'.
We also see their actions. Tim has personally dictated that the EME
advance, and has dictated the form of the spec that has advanced. The
EME is not a product of an open process, but a spec dictated by a
narrow select group. The EME is Tim's specification, not the open
webs specification.
Tim has stated that content protection is "in scope" for the HTML
working group. He has not taken any position on the EME spec.
Sorry I do not consider this 'taking no position'.
Stop claiming that the EME being advanced has any legitimacy as an
open standard.
cheers
Fred
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:15:04 -0700
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Trust
I do feel bound to point out what Jeff and the staff have repeatedly
said which is the W3C has not taken a position on whether EME should
be approved or not. The topic is in scope (and, btw, it's always a big
ask to suggest that a topic isn't even *discussed*), but that doesn't
mean we will find an acceptable solution. The much more significant
decision will be whether to approve the EME specification. At this
point W3C will have to decide whether the issues raised against the
specification have been sufficiently addressed. Since I expect there
is likely to be a Formal Objection to any approval by the Working
Group then it will be the director who decides on this (IIUC).
