5 ms·

Would it have made the user experience of DRM any worse than it currently is, though? The DRM module would still ship with Chrome and Edge (and likely Safari t

Would it have made the user experience of DRM any worse than it currently is, though? The DRM module would still ship with Chrome and Edge (and likely Safari too, given Apple became involved pretty quickly), you'd still need multiple different streaming formats (in the form of different DRM formats) as you do today, and maybe you'd need slightly different JS codepath per-browser too (but that's not a big difference to today with the different DRM formats). It's very unclear to me that the W3C refusing to be involved from day one would've led to any outcome very more than subtly different than the one we ended at. At the point that the specification went to Recommendation, there were already multiple interoperable implementations, so objecting at that point was purely a matter of principle, it literally wouldn't have affected the outcome in any way.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
If the W3C making the right decision would make them irrelevant then what has actually happened is that they're already irrelevant, and becoming a rubber stamp on bad ideas only serves to prove that and erode their credibility. Moreover, such organizations are made up of their members, and it's up to the members to do the right thing as well. Nobody had to volunteer to be the first to add this gunk to their browser. It can't be a competitive disadvantage if nobody else has it either, and it can't be a competitive advantage if everybody else has it, and those are the two options so why not choose the first?
- kbenson 8y ago
  This is just the age old discussion of whether it's better to capitulate in small ways so you can steer a group away from bad behavior/decisions later or to make a stand on principle to draw attention to the current bad decisions. As much as some people like to say one is better than the other, I think the answer is always "it depends". Unfortunately, it depends not only on the relative power and momentum behind the current problem when deciding, but also on unknowns such as what will happen in the future. It's hard for me to find too much fault in them deciding that they would rather stay somewhat relevant to the process than become obviously irrelevant (if that was indeed the thought process), as there's still a lot they can affect in the future. Armchair quarterbacking about what they should have done isn't too useful in my eyes.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    Except that there was no such trade off here. If they refuse to approve DRM and then some browsers unwisely implement it anyway, having their approval makes it worse, not better. The browsers doing the wrong thing can claim to be following a standard, even though the standard is useless garbage because the entire point of having a standard is so that anyone can implement it, which in this case they still can't.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      The trade off is in relevancy. If the standards body doesn't force a confrontation it knows it can't win, then it retains some power that it can throw behind or against future proposals. If the major browsers have already decided to completely ignore them and create their own consensus, there's that much less reason to listen to them next time. Not only has a precedent been set, but coordination on features outside the control may have already been somewhat standardized behind the scenes (beyond what they already do), making it easier next time. The downside is as you say that the browsers can point to the standard as for why they implemented it, but that's why it's a trade off, and not cut and dry (IMO)
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
        In some sense everything is always a trade off. But some things cost more than they're worth.
- richardwhiuk 8y ago
  You seem to be mistaking the fact that the W3C for Web Standards is just the browsers. The last time it wasn't, the browsers formed WHATWG and the W3C became irrelevant.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

If the W3C making the right decision would make them irrelevant then what has actually happened is that they're already irrelevant, and becoming a rubber stamp on bad ideas only serves to prove that and erode their credibility. Moreover, such organizations are made up of their members, and it's up to the members to do the right thing as well. Nobody had to volunteer to be the first to add this gunk to their browser. It can't be a competitive disadvantage if nobody else has it either, and it can't be a competitive advantage if everybody else has it, and those are the two options so why not choose the first?

kbenson 8y ago
This is just the age old discussion of whether it's better to capitulate in small ways so you can steer a group away from bad behavior/decisions later or to make a stand on principle to draw attention to the current bad decisions. As much as some people like to say one is better than the other, I think the answer is always "it depends". Unfortunately, it depends not only on the relative power and momentum behind the current problem when deciding, but also on unknowns such as what will happen in the future. It's hard for me to find too much fault in them deciding that they would rather stay somewhat relevant to the process than become obviously irrelevant (if that was indeed the thought process), as there's still a lot they can affect in the future. Armchair quarterbacking about what they should have done isn't too useful in my eyes.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  Except that there was no such trade off here. If they refuse to approve DRM and then some browsers unwisely implement it anyway, having their approval makes it worse, not better. The browsers doing the wrong thing can claim to be following a standard, even though the standard is useless garbage because the entire point of having a standard is so that anyone can implement it, which in this case they still can't.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    The trade off is in relevancy. If the standards body doesn't force a confrontation it knows it can't win, then it retains some power that it can throw behind or against future proposals. If the major browsers have already decided to completely ignore them and create their own consensus, there's that much less reason to listen to them next time. Not only has a precedent been set, but coordination on features outside the control may have already been somewhat standardized behind the scenes (beyond what they already do), making it easier next time. The downside is as you say that the browsers can point to the standard as for why they implemented it, but that's why it's a trade off, and not cut and dry (IMO)
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      In some sense everything is always a trade off. But some things cost more than they're worth.
richardwhiuk 8y ago
You seem to be mistaking the fact that the W3C for Web Standards is just the browsers. The last time it wasn't, the browsers formed WHATWG and the W3C became irrelevant.