Re: W3C standards and the Hollyweb
On 26/04/2013, at 9:38 PM, Alessandro Vesely ves...@tana.it wrote: Injecting DRM through EME is a disservice to web standardization, since the latter is supposed to foster the Internet revolution. What does that *mean*? I'm wary of waving around banners like the Internet revolution, since they can so easily be misused. The Internet revolution is the big step after the industrial revolution. I didn't mean to misuse that banner: It is a typical effect of industrial revolution to bring many workers to some large factories. Free-software development, for a counter example, doesn't fit into that model. I'd agree that the phenomenon is still young and that the economics of the new model definitely need to be improved. However, that cannot be done while sticking to the old production model. Which direction is the media industry heading to? Watch-on-demand could have been implemented on private networks and proprietary equipment. However, cables had not been laid until the Internet took root, and that was pushed by the web. The direction of history seems to be clear enough to allow taking a firm position. Well said. If you haven't done so already, please sign the FSF petition: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5 -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Re: W3C standards and the Hollyweb
On Fri 26/Apr/2013 21:59:52 +0200 Brian E Carpenter wrote: 3. EME should have a very low or zero cost of entry for a content provider. Quoting from a commenter on The Register: The DRM mechanism must allow *individuals* (or small groups) a low-cost low-hassle way to use it. That's because the way to destroy the various evil DRM empires is not to steal content - it's to allow creators to manage the sale of their own creations without needing a big bad bloodsucker to help them. That means a DRM system that anybody can use to protect their own stuff. A DRM add-on that individuals or small groups use to protect their stuff seems to be a chimera. Manu Sporny [1] points out that even Microsoft is unable to support Silverlight on Internet Explorer 8 on older versions of their operating system and the latest version of Chrome on certain versions of Windows and Mac. Can small groups be expected to do better? A comparison with youtube suggests that yet another software barrier is not what small media producers really need. [1] http://manu.sporny.org/2013/drm-in-html5/ -- If you haven't done so already, please sign the FSF petition: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5
RE: Last Call: draft-sheffer-running-code-04.txt (Improving Awareness of Running Code: the Implementation Status Section) to Experimental RFC
--On Friday, April 26, 2013 12:47 -0700 SM s...@resistor.net wrote: ... I think you are right. Of course, individuals pushing drafts to the ISE could do the same thing, but that is probably out of scope for us. The ISE could even point to your document as useful advice for individuals pushing drafts in the Independent Stream. This piece of the discussion interacts with another issue. There has been pushback from time to time about either Independent Submissions or Informational documents generally containing normative statements of any kind. Personally, I think that is an excess of caution that leads to convoluted workarounds that don't help anyone, but others disagree. We will probably find more out about this as the experiment runs but my guess is that implementation statements will have much less value if they say we implemented something like what is specified here rather than to the best of our understanding, we have an implementation that conforms to this specification. It is hard to the do latter, or to talk about conformance at all, in the absence of normative and/or conformance statements. Interoperability reports have much the same problem: if a specification doesn't contain any normative statements, it becomes difficult to even guess which of a pair of implementations that don't interoperate is actually operating as intended.[1] So I recommend that we continue to concentrate this effort on Standards Track protocol specification documents (as the I-D now does) and start worrying about the various other cases after we see where the current proposed experiment that leads us. john [1] The community has some history of settling that problem by examining several implementations, figuring out which interpretation is used by more of them than others, and then changing the specs to match. That scenario has certainly not been the tendency in recent years.
Re: W3C standards and the Hollyweb
On 27/04/2013 20:02, Alessandro Vesely wrote: A DRM add-on that individuals or small groups use to protect their stuff seems to be a chimera. Has anybody tried to design one? Brian
Re: Last Call: draft-saintandre-impp-call-info-02.txt (Instant Messaging and Presence Purpose for the Call-Info Header Field in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)) to Proposed Standard
At 13:07 16-04-2013, The IESG wrote: The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider the following document: - 'Instant Messaging and Presence Purpose for the Call-Info Header Field in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)' draft-saintandre-impp-call-info-02.txt as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2013-05-14. Exceptionally, comments may be This is the shortest soon-to-be Proposed Standard I have seen so far. I had to read the other 541 pages though. There is a nice write-up for the draft. I see that Jitsi [1] is working on CUSAX [2]. Regards, -sm 1. https://jitsi.org 2. http://www.kamailio.org/events/2013-KamailioWorld/14-Emil.Ivov-Jitsi.pdf
