Clearly that purported leverage is not enough. The options are to try something or give up.
Right. The browser vendors are representing the position of the content producers. It's the W3C's job to find acceptable compromises.
-
-
So the question is: what were the in-the-room-where-it-happens arguments against the EFF compromise proposal?
-
I would expect many companies to object to a legally binding document they don't perceive as vital to them. It's asking for exposure...
-
...in exchange for a public good they don't feel strongly about. That alone could almost derail it. Add browser vendors and it's dead.
-
This is a far too fatalistic point of view and removes the agency of the Director, excusing him for his behavior.
-
1: We'll never know if your game theory is right because we were too cowardly to try.
-
2: if the browser vendors and content producers actually maintained a long term blockade against EFF-included EME, your argument ...
-
3/3: would hold water. It's hardly an argument for the Director to compromise with ourselves and capitulate ahead of time.
-
But it sounds like you're backing up what I said earlier: W3C management, and especially TBL, have long believed capitulation inevitable.
- 21 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.