4 ms·

Google and Microsoft are supporters and working on the spec, https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w

• kibwen 14y ago
  Right, but it's Apple, not Google, who holds the keys to Webkit. Not that I presume that Apple is so benevolent (naive much?), but it wouldn't be the first time that Apple has outright rejected a Googler's patch (I can't remember the link now, something about Dart integration). Obviously Google could always fork the whole project for the sole purpose of implementing DRM, but what a fiasco that would be!
  • azakai 14y ago
    Google doesn't need to officially fork WebKit, it can keep these features in Chromium and not push them into WebKit - like many other features, including the one you mentioned (Dart support that Apple rejected). But Chrome is still a major implementation, it doesn't have to get into WebKit or not (for standardization purposes that we are discussing here).
    • kibwen 14y ago
      Thanks, I wasn't sure what was considered an "implementation" according to the W3C. In other news, azakai, you work for Mozilla, correct? Have they issued an official statement regarding this?
      • azakai 14y ago
        Not to my knowledge. But it is very possible I just didn't hear a statement if there was one ;)
      • bzbarsky 14y ago
        Chrome certainly counts as an implementation. You just can't count Chrome and Safari as two separate implementations if the actual code is in shared WebKit (but you _can_ count them if the implementation is unshared code, for what it's worth). As for Mozilla, no official statement yet, though there have been some public comments from Robert O'Callahan on the EME spec.