Why did TBL reject EFF's proposal? Where's the rationale? What possible good could come of *not* protecting security researchers & fair use?
-
-
Replying to @BrendanEich @littlecalculist and
Because it would have been the XHTML 2 of legal agreements?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robinberjon @littlecalculist and
If Director supported EFF & rejecting members did EME elsewhere, we would be no worse off. What happened sets W3C precedent for more WebDRM.
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @robinberjon and
Per my blog (https://brendaneich.com/2013/10/the-bridge-of-khazad-drm/ …), by 2013 EME was "in IE11 on Windows 8.1 w/o Silverlight. And Chrome OS has deployed EME...Apple too."
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @robinberjon and
Google, Microsoft, Netflix used W3C as spec-drafting site, shipped EME ahead of RECommendation status, made it a _fait accompli_ years ago.
2 replies 5 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @littlecalculist and
That happens a lot in Web standards, as you well know.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robinberjon @littlecalculist and
Keep reading, my point was not that de-facto happened ahead of de-jure, rather that it shows W3C could have risked bigs taking EME outside.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @littlecalculist and
Of course it could have. It boils down to whether tech that is key to the Web experience should be without IPR, a11y, etc.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @robinberjon @BrendanEich and
So you're saying there's no question that if the Director ruled for the EFF compromise, the stakeholders would have bolted?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And what did we risk by trying to find out?
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.