Search Mailing List Archives
[liberationtech] WC3 and DRM
ecrire at catherine-roy.net
Wed Jul 17 17:09:40 PDT 2013
On 2013-07-17 09:52, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>> To my knowledge, no information has yet been made public regarding
>> the outcome of this formal objection. There has been a second
>> formal objection filed that is also awaiting resolution .
> I have had a hard time figuring out what, exactly, is going on.
You are right; it is very difficult to follow and catch everything, what
with hundreds of emails coming out of the HTML WG, the Restricted Media
Group, etc., not to mention the euh, intricate W3C process.
> I had
> thought that this decision  about EME being out of scope for the
> html WG dealt with the EFF's objection. But it looks like the
> objection Catherine points to  that incorporated the EFF objection
> was posted considerably after the decision in .
I could be mistaken but I do not believe the decision you refer to
addresses the EFF objection as the message was posted on May 9 and the
EFF objection was submitted on May 29. I do not recall to what
objections Sam Ruby is referring to in that email and there is just too
much info to sift through.
> There is a bug
> (20967)  for this objection, in a manner of speaking (it only
> addresses part of the EFF objection), but it's been marked a dupe of
> an interop bug on CDMs (which I believe are out of scope for EME,
> etc.) and the first public working draft (FPWD) was indeed published
> on 10 May .
Thank you for the additional info, I had not had time to look at the bugs.
> What I suspect is happening is this: the EFF objection is to the
> *charter* of the HTML WG and whether or not EME should be in scope for
> that charter. Objections like the one above in w3c against a FPWD
> doesn't stop the FPWD from being published, but presumably the w3c
> director has to eventually say something about formal objections. So,
> maybe this is winding its' way up to the Director?
Yes, you are right. EFF has objected to the Charter whereas Andreas's
objection was of a more technical nature (interoperability), else he
would not have been allowed to submit it to the working group. And yes,
according W3C process, the director should be involved in the decision.
> Anyway, if anyone has further insight, I'd be interested.
More information about the liberationtech