On 2013-10-25 13:17 Alastair Campbell wrote: > Emmanuel Revah wrote: > > For example, if EME/DRM is rejected from the W3C, those that require DRM > > for their businesses will probably find another way, it can either be > > contained by the web (like Flash) or not. > > I think what would happen is that the companies would carry on, it would > work through the HTML5 video element in pretty much the same way as it has > been specced so far. > > The only differences would be that: > - The W3C isn't seen to accept DRM.
> I don't think making protected content out-of-scope would have any > practical effect. you've just listed a practical effect, and an important one IMO -- Cheers
