On 2013/10/22 16:41, Mark Watson wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 22, 2013, at 3:28 AM, Emmanuel Revah <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 2013/10/22 04:30, Duncan Bayne wrote:
[...]
Continuing to state that it is "inimical to the W3Cs mission &
goals"
repeatedly doesn't seem to be changing the answer any. Do you have
anything new to add, or will you just continue proving to us that
you
like writing "inimical"?
JF, I don't understand why such a remark. Some of us learned a new
word.
(on a side note, it's really too bad your MUA breaks threading (at
least for me), all your replies appear to me as new threads. Imagine
the deception this morning).
[...]
Re. this thread, I was trying to make the point that, for the
purposes
of deciding whether to treat DRM as in-scope, it doesn't matter
whether
or not the movie industry wants it or not.
This exactly. Though this has been said over and over (and over)
again... .. sometimes with better wording than others. Too many times
the conversation gets steered off topic. Piracy and business models,
those shouldn't be the concern in this place.
A problem is that some EME proponents don't want to acknowledge the
issue with a possible degradation of the W3C's credibility. It's
almost 'the' issue, yet many proponents on this list dismiss it
entirely. This is part of why the discussion goes nowhere, credibility
is at stake and it's not a non-issue as some may pretend it is.
I've addressed it a few times. Perhaps I need to be more direct.
If you believe that the purpose of the W3C is to act as a campaigning
champion for a web _exclusively_ based on copyleft and Free Software
principles, then yes, working on EME would be inimical to that goal.
To me, this feels like a reply to something I did not write or at least
thought I didn't write. I've noticed that this happens quite often, the
discussion is impossible because it's not really a discussion. Sorry for
whatever part of that is my fault.
[...]
I cut out everything irrelevant to the discussion. That said, the thing
with Object and EME is an interesting point that's been raised by both
sides here, perhaps if we are able to stay on topic for once, a thread
about "EME and Object" could really be helpful.
Maybe another way to look at the question:
If EME within the W3C creates a divided web, would it be worth it ?
What division does EME "create" ? That is, what division does not
exist today that would exist if EME is approved by W3C ?
EME does not create a division. That isn't what I wrote, again sorry for
whatever part of that is my fault.
I wrote: EME *within* the W3C. I also wrote *IF*. The question is, *IF*
EME *within* the W3C creates a divide, would it [EME] still be worth it
[having in the W3C specification] ?
The idea behind this question is that perhaps at some point, whatever
happens with EME, the outcome might possibly lead to a division. (in
case this isn't clear, I'm writing "might" and not "will").
For example, if EME/DRM is rejected from the W3C, those that require DRM
for their businesses will probably find another way, it can either be
contained by the web (like Flash) or not. If EME does become part of
W3C's spec, then we'd have a similar situation the other way around, the
effect could range from a simple "W3C valid GPL rainbow unicorn edition"
to a complete W3C fork.
On one hand certain businesses that don't want to live without DRM will
probably not let go because it's not in the W3C's spec. On the other
hand, there are institutions and even individuals who design web pages
and do their best to make sure anyone can view their content, regardless
of the visitors web browser, operating system or hardware*. For those
institutions, they may require at least a fork of the validator to
ensure true platform agnostic compatibility of their websites.
--------------------
* Because this *will* be misinterpreted as it has in the past, by this I
mean: the browser would of course need to be able to interpret the W3C's
spec, the hardware will need to support the functionality deployed by
the website, but the user will not have to use *specific* hardware (with
built-in CDM) nor use a specific piece of software (CDM) nor use a
specific operating system (that supports the hardware and or software
required to make use of the CDM and/or has it's own built-in CDM).
In other words, anyone should be able/allowed to build their systems on
their own, be it open or closed, it shouldn't be because of this that
they may be excluded from parts of the web.
--------------------
Maybe this was a naive attempt on my behalf to try think about this from
another angle.
--
Emmanuel Revah
http://manurevah.com
