On 2013-10-25 00:20 Milan Zamazal wrote: > >>>>> "c" == cobaco <[email protected]> writes: > c> On 2013-10-23 06:11 Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote: > >> There doesn't seem to be a practical way to get to this result, > >> as is painfully obvious. Focusing on working on EME to constrain > >> CDMs and other alternatives do seem realistic. Can the > >> principled camp in these discussions fall back to practical > >> solutions? > > c> in other words 'are we willing to give up our principals for > c> practical gain', and do so in a situation where the 'gain' is > c> questionable at best? > > I agree that a standard excluding some users by definition from > accessing Web content is a bad standard. However we can end up with a > bad standard or with an even worse standard.
there's a 3th option: no standard a bad standard is worse then no standard -- Cheers
