Mark, I'm with you.
We need rationale discussion, arguments and not religious proclamations. The fact that content protection is needed as their authors, creators request it is the first reality. The fact that Open web plaform is used to access these contents is also another reality. So how to make it compatible and happen ? That's the object of the discussion. Have a good week end Pierre ________________________________________ De : Mark Watson [[email protected]] Date d'envoi : vendredi 18 octobre 2013 17:29 À : Mhyst Cc : Jeff Jaffe; Fred Andrews; [email protected] Objet : Re: Trust How hard is it to understand the difference between discussing something and approving something ? It is always a really a hard sell to ask that something not even be discussed when some people want to discuss it, in almost any context. You have to demonstrate a priori that nothing good could come of discussion. People generally believe that talking is good (this is not the US congress, after all). So you have to demonstrate that all possible outcomes would be bad. So you have to know all possible outcomes. That's always going to be quite a claim. Also, one of the possible outcomes is that nothing happens. ...Mark On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Mhyst <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> CC: [email protected]<mailto:[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).
