6 ms·

> We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. Let's just "fork" the web from W3C (or 3WC as some people like to call them by now) inst

> We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. Let's just "fork" the web from W3C (or 3WC as some people like to call them by now) instead.

ashleysmithgpu 9y ago
Is the EFF a big enough presence to "fork" the W3C standards? I hope so.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  The only party with the capability of "forking" Internet standards as we know them is Google. Because as the majority share of web browser traffic an extremely dominant percentage of web server traffic, Google can define the Internet as it wishes, and everyone else has to follow along or fall behind. This is the same with EME. Standards organizations stay relevant by accepting what Google gives them, they would simply be left behind if they didn't. (For those who don't know, Widevine, the DRM scheme that is currently best known as compatible with EME, and which taints my Firefox browser so I can watch movies, is owned by Google.) http://www.widevine.com http://www.widevine.com (Sidebar to the sidebar: Widevine has the least Googley website you've ever seen. Stock photos of a physical padlock, HTML code entirely based on table tags for layout. It's so strange.)
- KGIII 9y ago
  I doubt it. Specifically, I doubt they will, or even want to. That's not really what they do, they are mostly advocates. As advocates,I'm sad to see them do this. I will still donate to them, but it's unfortunate to see them quit. This means they will no longer have a seat at the table for future discussions. They still do enough good to be worth donating to, but this was not a very good choice on their part.
- frivoal 9y ago
  That's the wrong question. W3C itself is relatively tiny, and has fairly ordinary (albeit well tuned) software/server infrastructure. Reproducing the legal framework would be more of a pain, but even that could probably be done. But W3C is mostly its member companies, and the're not switching, since the majority of them, including all browsers, were in favor of this. So if all existing specifications continue to reside on W3C's web site, and all new specifications continue to be produced (by member companies) in the same place, there's not meaningful forking possible. If members are disgruntled, you can fork. That's happened before when there was disagreement about what to do with HTML, and it led to the creation of the WHATWG. By and large, members this time are supportive. Not all, mind you, but all the large players.
  - exikyut 9y ago
    What's the WHATWG's position on EME and particularly these developments?
vkou 9y ago
Great, I'm sure the enterprises on the W3C who voted for this will jump on board. Oh, you mean I can't get Netflix on the forked internet? Welp, back to mainline.
- josteink 9y ago
  For me it's the other way around. Netflix is on the other side? Cancel 'em.
  - jakelazaroff 9y ago
    I'm willing to bet there are quite a few zeroes between the decimal point and the other digits of the percentage of people who will actually practice what you're preaching here.
  - tempay 9y ago
    I applaud you and anyone else who does this but I fear too many people sit on the other side of caring more about having Neflix now than maintaining the open internet. I know I won't be able to persuade my partner that we shouldn't watch Netflix anymore because of an issue she doesn't care about.
    - quickthrower2 9y ago
      Maybe you can persuade your partner with: 1. Cancelling Netflix saves money. and ... 2. Watching less TV gives you more free time to get outside, exercise etc.
  - vkou 9y ago
    If you want a text-only web, with no major content producers on it, you already have that. Just disable your browser's multimedia plugins. Or use Lynx, or some other browser of the 90s. The open parts of the web will still work. Anyways, Netflix, Google, Apple, and Microsoft (probably - they aren't making their votes public) support this, so this is a great time to cancel your subscriptions and stop using their products.
emodendroket 9y ago
And which browsers are going on this fork?
- yellowapple 9y ago
  If Mozilla has any integrity, then I suspect Firefox might.
  - bubblethink 9y ago
    What good is integrity if nobody uses Firefox ? That was the main reason they added EME support in the first place. Firefox staying relevant in the browser market is a better strategy in the long run than a hard line stance against DRM.
    - dTal 9y ago
      What good is Firefox if it doesn't have integrity?
      - kibwen 9y ago
        I can't tell if this is satire. Does anyone seriously believe that surrendering the war when you've lost one battle is an intelligent strategy? Mozilla contributes a whole lot to OSS, including providing a browser that can be trivially used without any black-box DRM-enforcement code hitting your system.
        dTal 9y ago
        I didn't mean to suggest I categorically disagreed with the decision, in this case. I simply note that you can't extend that logic indefinitely, or you lose the thing you're fighting for.
      - thatzerodude 9y ago
        True that. Time to start using Firefox forks. Pale Moon, Iceweasel, GNU Icecat. Maybe go even further outside the box, use gngr: https://gngr.info/ https://gngr.info/
CJefferson 9y ago
No, the W3C is the web. You'd be forking to what? This was basically wanted by Firefox, Apple, Microsoft and Google. They are the modern web. Trying to go against them is how we ended up with XHTML, a standard no-one really wanted, or implemented.
- hughw 9y ago
  W3C is not the web. Check out the history and motivation behind WHATWG. They led on HTML5, then W3C followed.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  Actually, no. The Web is more an API for browsers at this point than anything. The W3C is, well, secondary, if browser manufacturers get behind another body - it'll happen.
- crabasa 9y ago
  The W3C is not the web. Look no further than the good work the WHATWG did to move the web forward while the W3C & Microsoft were holding the web back in the early 2000's.
  - sgift 9y ago
    > Look no further than the good work the WHATWG did And who was WHATWG? Oh right, exactly the same companies that now voted for DRM as W3C standard. And why could they do WHATWG? Because they are the vendors of the majority browsers.
    - dannyobrien 9y ago
      WHATWG did not include EME in the WHATWG HTML living standard, and supported EFF's proposal to protect security researchers: https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security Ian Hickson also came out strongly against DRM when this whole debate started: https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2 https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2
saalweachter 9y ago
All I ask is that you don't use W's in your acronyms. If you just fix ONE THING with your reboot--

> We're losing the internet day by day, if we haven't done so already. Let's just "fork" the web from W3C (or 3WC as some people like to call them by now) instead.

ashleysmithgpu 9y ago

Is the EFF a big enough presence to "fork" the W3C standards? I hope so.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
The only party with the capability of "forking" Internet standards as we know them is Google. Because as the majority share of web browser traffic an extremely dominant percentage of web server traffic, Google can define the Internet as it wishes, and everyone else has to follow along or fall behind. This is the same with EME. Standards organizations stay relevant by accepting what Google gives them, they would simply be left behind if they didn't. (For those who don't know, Widevine, the DRM scheme that is currently best known as compatible with EME, and which taints my Firefox browser so I can watch movies, is owned by Google.) http://www.widevine.com http://www.widevine.com (Sidebar to the sidebar: Widevine has the least Googley website you've ever seen. Stock photos of a physical padlock, HTML code entirely based on table tags for layout. It's so strange.)
KGIII 9y ago
I doubt it. Specifically, I doubt they will, or even want to. That's not really what they do, they are mostly advocates. As advocates,I'm sad to see them do this. I will still donate to them, but it's unfortunate to see them quit. This means they will no longer have a seat at the table for future discussions. They still do enough good to be worth donating to, but this was not a very good choice on their part.
frivoal 9y ago
That's the wrong question. W3C itself is relatively tiny, and has fairly ordinary (albeit well tuned) software/server infrastructure. Reproducing the legal framework would be more of a pain, but even that could probably be done. But W3C is mostly its member companies, and the're not switching, since the majority of them, including all browsers, were in favor of this. So if all existing specifications continue to reside on W3C's web site, and all new specifications continue to be produced (by member companies) in the same place, there's not meaningful forking possible. If members are disgruntled, you can fork. That's happened before when there was disagreement about what to do with HTML, and it led to the creation of the WHATWG. By and large, members this time are supportive. Not all, mind you, but all the large players.
- exikyut 9y ago
  What's the WHATWG's position on EME and particularly these developments?

vkou 9y ago

Great, I'm sure the enterprises on the W3C who voted for this will jump on board. Oh, you mean I can't get Netflix on the forked internet? Welp, back to mainline.

josteink 9y ago
For me it's the other way around. Netflix is on the other side? Cancel 'em.
- jakelazaroff 9y ago
  I'm willing to bet there are quite a few zeroes between the decimal point and the other digits of the percentage of people who will actually practice what you're preaching here.
- tempay 9y ago
  I applaud you and anyone else who does this but I fear too many people sit on the other side of caring more about having Neflix now than maintaining the open internet. I know I won't be able to persuade my partner that we shouldn't watch Netflix anymore because of an issue she doesn't care about.
  - quickthrower2 9y ago
    Maybe you can persuade your partner with: 1. Cancelling Netflix saves money. and ... 2. Watching less TV gives you more free time to get outside, exercise etc.
- vkou 9y ago
  If you want a text-only web, with no major content producers on it, you already have that. Just disable your browser's multimedia plugins. Or use Lynx, or some other browser of the 90s. The open parts of the web will still work. Anyways, Netflix, Google, Apple, and Microsoft (probably - they aren't making their votes public) support this, so this is a great time to cancel your subscriptions and stop using their products.

emodendroket 9y ago

And which browsers are going on this fork?

yellowapple 9y ago
If Mozilla has any integrity, then I suspect Firefox might.
- bubblethink 9y ago
  What good is integrity if nobody uses Firefox ? That was the main reason they added EME support in the first place. Firefox staying relevant in the browser market is a better strategy in the long run than a hard line stance against DRM.
  - dTal 9y ago
    What good is Firefox if it doesn't have integrity?
    - kibwen 9y ago
      I can't tell if this is satire. Does anyone seriously believe that surrendering the war when you've lost one battle is an intelligent strategy? Mozilla contributes a whole lot to OSS, including providing a browser that can be trivially used without any black-box DRM-enforcement code hitting your system.
      - dTal 9y ago
        I didn't mean to suggest I categorically disagreed with the decision, in this case. I simply note that you can't extend that logic indefinitely, or you lose the thing you're fighting for.
    - thatzerodude 9y ago
      True that. Time to start using Firefox forks. Pale Moon, Iceweasel, GNU Icecat. Maybe go even further outside the box, use gngr: https://gngr.info/ https://gngr.info/

CJefferson 9y ago

No, the W3C is the web. You'd be forking to what? This was basically wanted by Firefox, Apple, Microsoft and Google. They are the modern web. Trying to go against them is how we ended up with XHTML, a standard no-one really wanted, or implemented.

hughw 9y ago
W3C is not the web. Check out the history and motivation behind WHATWG. They led on HTML5, then W3C followed.
justinjlynn 9y ago
Actually, no. The Web is more an API for browsers at this point than anything. The W3C is, well, secondary, if browser manufacturers get behind another body - it'll happen.
crabasa 9y ago
The W3C is not the web. Look no further than the good work the WHATWG did to move the web forward while the W3C & Microsoft were holding the web back in the early 2000's.
- sgift 9y ago
  > Look no further than the good work the WHATWG did And who was WHATWG? Oh right, exactly the same companies that now voted for DRM as W3C standard. And why could they do WHATWG? Because they are the vendors of the majority browsers.
  - dannyobrien 9y ago
    WHATWG did not include EME in the WHATWG HTML living standard, and supported EFF's proposal to protect security researchers: https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security Ian Hickson also came out strongly against DRM when this whole debate started: https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2 https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2

saalweachter 9y ago

All I ask is that you don't use W's in your acronyms. If you just fix ONE THING with your reboot--