David Singer <[email protected]> writes: > On Oct 22, 2013, at 17:59 , John Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Mark Watson <[email protected]> writes: >> >>>> That content is *still* completely broken w.r.t. the open web. >>> >>> What I'm saying is just that there's no difference in this respect >>> between EME and <object>. The term 'open web' isn't well-enough >>> defined for us to make much progress with it. Is <object> part of the >>> 'open web' according to your definition ? >>> >> >> The difference, as has been said I'm sure many times by others before my >> randomly interjecting, is that *only* proprietary, non-interoperable, >> patented technologies fit the shape of the EME container. > > Primarily maybe, but no, it's been pointed out many times it's not "only". >
Fortunately, W3C can still reject it because of its primary purpose. I also don't think "primarily maybe" does it justice. "I can think of hypothetical cases where someone might use EME for something other than DRM" is not a reason for W3C to ignore what the actual use will be. > Nor has anyone proposed a better way. alas. > EME is a step backward, so the better way is simply ending work on it, with explanation that will help guide future proposed recommendations. -john -- John Sullivan | Executive Director, Free Software Foundation GPG Key: 61A0963B | http://status.fsf.org/johns | http://fsf.org/blogs/RSS Do you use free software? Donate to join the FSF and support freedom at <http://www.fsf.org/register_form?referrer=8096>.
