Three of four browser vendors are DRM vendors too. Again, the Director could have ruled for the compromise.
-
-
Replying to @BrendanEich @wycats and
Absolutely. Were there any calls to boycott them and exert pressure where it mattered? I didn't see any...
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
-
Replying to @robinberjon @BrendanEich and
This isn't a very productive activism direction. People mostly use browsers for quality, not moral reasons.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @wycats @BrendanEich and
Who’s fatalistic now? :) Browser qualities are within breathing distance of one another, it’s not like it’s a serious sacrifice.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @robinberjon @wycats and
Stop putting onus on activists to make up for W3C's failure. If we have to do this (cf. http://WHATWG.org in 2004) why do we need W3C?
3 replies 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @wycats and
There is no Web police. It’s not that the onus is on activists — it’s on everyone who cares.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @robinberjon @wycats and
Then why does the Director have authority to resolve conflicts? You can't have it both ways. TBL rejected EFF's proposal. He's on the hook.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @BrendanEich @wycats and
Ok, and what happens next? Say, in the wake of that decision Apple leaves. EME goes to a separate consortium, without IPR. Is it a win?
4 replies 0 retweets 1 like
What should happen next is the removal of the power of the Director to make this decision and a return to consensus-based decisionmaking.
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.