Oh, good, then he didn't know what was to come upon leting the door open to "protected content".
I'm sorry, but that is hard to believe. 2013/10/18 Jeff Jaffe <[email protected]> > 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). > > > > >
