Re: Proposed W3C Charter: HTML Working Group
On 22/05/13 03:09, L. David Baron wrote: On Friday 2013-02-08 14:37 -0800, L. David Baron wrote: W3C is proposing a revised charter for the HTML Working Group. For more details, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013Feb/0009.html http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through Tuesday, March 12. Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should say. A bit of followup here. One of the pieces of feedback I got as part of the previous round of review was that we should push for at least allowing *experimentation* with more open document licenses than the W3C currently allows. As a result, the W3C has proposed a revised charter with this modification and a few other small modifications resulting from the review. I've described the rationale for this and the sequence of events in a bit more detail here: http://dbaron.org/log/20130522-w3c-licensing This means there's currently another charter review period going on, to review this new charter: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013May/.html http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2013/ Thank you for doing that David, this is a great step forward :) -- Mounir ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: HTML Working Group
On Friday 2013-02-08 14:37 -0800, L. David Baron wrote: W3C is proposing a revised charter for the HTML Working Group. For more details, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013Feb/0009.html http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through Tuesday, March 12. Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should say. A bit of followup here. One of the pieces of feedback I got as part of the previous round of review was that we should push for at least allowing *experimentation* with more open document licenses than the W3C currently allows. As a result, the W3C has proposed a revised charter with this modification and a few other small modifications resulting from the review. I've described the rationale for this and the sequence of events in a bit more detail here: http://dbaron.org/log/20130522-w3c-licensing This means there's currently another charter review period going on, to review this new charter: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013May/.html http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2013/ Given the previous review, I'd like to be able to support this revision without making further comments. But nonetheless I'm posting the revised charter here in case others have comments that we ought to submit as part of this charter review (deadline: May 29). -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: HTML Working Group
On 12/02/13 21:20, Benoit Jacob wrote: I agree wholeheartedly with Benjamin and care about this, but I don't have a lot of time to get into this presumably time-consuming discussion on a W3C mailing list --- so I'd just like to express support to any Mozilla representative fighting this fight there. I definitely think it's time that we had a discussion within Mozilla as to what we should do about this. It's not trivially obvious what the right thing for the web is. The internet is going to be used as a delivery mechanism for commercial high-cost-of-production video. That's undeniable. There are three ways this could play out (pun intended): A) Provide a DRM mechanism in HTML5 which keeps them happy. (How breakable or not it actually is, is a different question.) Have the video delivered that way. B) Have all the commercial video content be only available via Flash, proprietary plugins or proprietary mobile apps, thereby saying there are some things the open web just can't provide for you - you need to go closed for that. C) Hope the economic analysis is wrong and that if we kill the idea of DRM in HTML5, this content will appear un-DRMed in HTML5 form anyway because it's just easier for them and the ease outweighs the lack of DRM. My concern is that if we go for C), we'll get B), and B) might be worse than A). Gerv ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: HTML Working Group
For starters, see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0178.html . On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Gervase Markham g...@mozilla.org wrote: A) Provide a DRM mechanism in HTML5 which keeps them happy. (How breakable or not it actually is, is a different question.) Have the video delivered that way. EME assumes multiple Key Systems, so EME isn't a fully contained one mechanism. It's a common part of several intentionally mutually incompatible mechanisms. (Incompatible on the key initialization level that is. They'll be intentionally compatible on the level of the large files that end up on content delivery networks.) B) Have all the commercial video content be only available via Flash, proprietary plugins or proprietary mobile apps, thereby saying there are some things the open web just can't provide for you - you need to go closed for that. I don't think we have this option. Microsoft and Google have editors on the EME spec. So this option looks more like: Have Hollywood movies available with good performance and without additional installs in IE and Chrome and *for the time being* available via Silverlight in Firefox on Windows and Mac (i.e. with additional installations, updates and performance and stability troubles and only as long as Microsoft bothers to keep Silverlight working and available). C) Hope the economic analysis is wrong and that if we kill the idea of DRM in HTML5, this content will appear un-DRMed in HTML5 form anyway because it's just easier for them and the ease outweighs the lack of DRM. My concern is that if we go for C), we'll get B), and B) might be worse than A). Indeed. And as noted above, B is likely to be worse than how you phrased it. -- Henri Sivonen hsivo...@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/ ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: HTML Working Group
On 13/02/13 12:55, Henri Sivonen wrote: I don't think we have this option. Microsoft and Google have editors on the EME spec. So this option looks more like: Have Hollywood movies available with good performance and without additional installs in IE and Chrome and *for the time being* available via Silverlight in Firefox on Windows and Mac ...and not on Linux at all... (i.e. with additional installations, updates and performance and stability troubles and only as long as Microsoft bothers to keep Silverlight working and available). I'm not enamoured of the idea of the answer to how do I watch Netflix/LoveFilm in Firefox? being head over to Microsoft and install Silverlight; bad luck if you run anything other than Windows or Mac OS X. (AFAICT, that is the answer at the moment anyway, but at least it's the same for all browsers. LoveFilm phased out Flash a while back - I was an upset customer. I assume Netflix did the same.) Gerv ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: HTML Working Group
Gervase Markham wrote: I'm not enamoured of the idea of the answer to how do I watch Netflix/LoveFilm in Firefox? being head over to Microsoft and install Silverlight; bad luck if you run anything other than Windows or Mac OS X. (AFAICT, that is the answer at the moment anyway, but at least it's the same for all browsers. LoveFilm phased out Flash a while back - I was an upset customer. I assume Netflix did the same.) Not forgetting that Adobe phased out Flash for Linux a while back too anyway. -- Warning: May contain traces of nuts. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: HTML Working Group
On 2/8/2013 5:37 PM, L. David Baron wrote: W3C is proposing a revised charter for the HTML Working Group. For more details, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013Feb/0009.html http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through Tuesday, March 12. Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should say. The only really interesting thing in the new charter seems to be the explicit call for standardizing playback of protected content for the HTMLMediaElement, which is pretty much codewords for DRM. DRM is fundamentally at odds with the notion of an open web and the HTML specification. The purpose of good specifications is to make it possible for anyone to implement a browser that can render the web. The purpose of DRM is to make it possible for content owners to give only some browsers the ability to play their content. DRM also defeats save, sharing, and remixing, which are fundamental aspects of the web. Whether or not there are practical short-term compromises that should be made to make a better alternative to Silverlight, I don't think that it should be within the scope of HTML to do that; it should be a separate effort, highly targeted at solving the devices based on HTML currently can't play netflix content problem without making any long-term commitments to DRM in the browser. --BDS ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: HTML Working Group
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:02:16 AM UTC-5, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: On 2/8/2013 5:37 PM, L. David Baron wrote: W3C is proposing a revised charter for the HTML Working Group. For more details, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013Feb/0009.html http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ Mozilla has the opportunity to send comments or objections through Tuesday, March 12. Please reply to this thread if you think there's something we should say. Is it just me, or is this fundamentally flawed from a security standpoint as well - malicious content able to hide from analysis by browser-enforced DRM? No thanks. ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: HTML Working Group
2013/2/12 Robert O'Callahan rob...@ocallahan.org On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Benjamin Smedberg benja...@smedbergs.us wrote: The only really interesting thing in the new charter seems to be the explicit call for standardizing playback of protected content for the HTMLMediaElement, which is pretty much codewords for DRM. DRM is fundamentally at odds with the notion of an open web and the HTML specification. The purpose of good specifications is to make it possible for anyone to implement a browser that can render the web. The purpose of DRM is to make it possible for content owners to give only some browsers the ability to play their content. DRM also defeats save, sharing, and remixing, which are fundamental aspects of the web. Whether or not there are practical short-term compromises that should be made to make a better alternative to Silverlight, I don't think that it should be within the scope of HTML to do that; it should be a separate effort, highly targeted at solving the devices based on HTML currently can't play netflix content problem without making any long-term commitments to DRM in the browser. If you really care about this, please contribute to the discussions on public-html-admin/public-html-media. Thanks :-) I agree wholeheartedly with Benjamin and care about this, but I don't have a lot of time to get into this presumably time-consuming discussion on a W3C mailing list --- so I'd just like to express support to any Mozilla representative fighting this fight there. Beyond the objection of principle (which I agree too -- DRM is incompatible with the notion of open standards), I'd also make the argument that we shouldn't let content owners impress us too easily with claims that particular protection measures would be a requirement before serious content would move to open Web standards. In the WebGL working group we've received input from content developers/owners claiming that various flavors of protection (e.g. they wanted binary shader formats) were a requirement before any serious commercial content would move to the open Web platform. We just ignored them, and big content started moving to WebGL anyways. Benoit Rob -- Wrfhf pnyyrq gurz gbtrgure naq fnvq, “Lbh xabj gung gur ehyref bs gur Tragvyrf ybeq vg bire gurz, naq gurve uvtu bssvpvnyf rkrepvfr nhgubevgl bire gurz. Abg fb jvgu lbh. Vafgrnq, jubrire jnagf gb orpbzr terng nzbat lbh zhfg or lbhe freinag, naq jubrire jnagf gb or svefg zhfg or lbhe fynir — whfg nf gur Fba bs Zna qvq abg pbzr gb or freirq, ohg gb freir, naq gb tvir uvf yvsr nf n enafbz sbe znal.” [Znggurj 20:25-28] ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: HTML Working Group
On 2/8/13 2:37 PM, L. David Baron wrote: W3C is proposing a revised charter for the HTML Working Group. For more details, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013Feb/0009.html http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ Is there a way to see what's changing from the current charter? Justin ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
Re: Proposed W3C Charter: HTML Working Group
On Saturday 2013-02-09 17:15 -0800, Justin Dolske wrote: On 2/8/13 2:37 PM, L. David Baron wrote: W3C is proposing a revised charter for the HTML Working Group. For more details, see: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-new-work/2013Feb/0009.html http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ Is there a way to see what's changing from the current charter? The only way I know of is manually comparing to http://www.w3.org/2007/03/HTML-WG-charter.html . -David -- 턞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 턂 턢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 턂 ___ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
