On 15.01.2014 16:58, Jeff Jaffe wrote:
On 1/15/2014 10:43 AM, Olivier Thereaux wrote:
Accordingly, a subset of the OWP which removes EME would more
accurately be characterized as a "profile" of the OWP, rather than a
fork of the OWP.
You're absolutely right. I meant a profile. And with a good platform to
support it.
Thinking from a user point of view:
Seeing a W3C logo means, there is the potential risk of executing
proprietary code
&
Seeing a "placeholder for W3C without EME, etc..." logo means, that
every piece of code is open in Terms of FOSS
A fork of the web platform means a world of interoperability issues.
Think: browser wars. It is hard to see how that can be a better
option than an interoperable web platform which includes unpleasant
features or badly designed components.
Interoperability, not purity is the main objective of an open
standard. A fork should always, always be the worst case scenario.
never wann go there again, but i consider my proposition to be an subset
of the official web platform, not an replacement. Sorry for the
misunderstanding, that may have been caused by my inprecise wording.
Thanks,
—
Olivier
-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless
specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------
