4 ms·

Question - have you actually read the draft specs for the proposed extensions? Here's a summary, straight from the source: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/h

by cheald 13y ago

Question - have you actually read the draft specs for the proposed extensions? Here's a summary, straight from the source: http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.html http://techblog.netflix.com/2013/04/html5-video-at-netflix.h... and the actual draft spec is here: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med... Nobody is suggesting a <html drm="true"> change here. We're not talking about enabling broad DRM for all the bytes delivered over HTTP internet. We're talking specifically about extensions to HTMLMediaElement (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLMediaElement https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/HTMLMediaEl...) which provide for challenge-response authentication and decryption of a media stream. Nobody has suggested that we should be adding some mechanism to HTML that allows a browser to talk to a webserver if the browser possess the right DRM license.

jlgreco 13y ago
Have you read the specs? A proprietary binary blob is still required. The proposal is only for a standardized interface with that binary blob. If that binary blob is not provided for a particular platform then you are left out in the cold, as before. > not talking about enabling broad DRM for all the bytes delivered over HTTP internet. We're talking specifically about extensions to HTMLMediaElement Gee, you think news sites may have multimedia? Naaahhh...
- cheald 13y ago
  Yes, I certainly have. I thought that perhaps you hadn't because you kept using the verb "read" rather than "watch" or "listen", which would actually apply to this discussion. I'm quite well aware that binary blobs are required for the CDM. The requirement of a license server and server-side encryption compatible with a client-deployed CDM would still be prohibitive for the "small fish" (after all, if they cared, they could just use Flash or Silverlight like is done today).
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    I suppose I am not as confident as you that small fish would stay out of the game. If. I was, my only objection would be that all things proprietary need to stay away from standards.

by cheald 13y ago

jlgreco 13y ago

Have you read the specs? A proprietary binary blob is still required. The proposal is only for a standardized interface with that binary blob. If that binary blob is not provided for a particular platform then you are left out in the cold, as before. > not talking about enabling broad DRM for all the bytes delivered over HTTP internet. We're talking specifically about extensions to HTMLMediaElement Gee, you think news sites may have multimedia? Naaahhh...

cheald 13y ago
Yes, I certainly have. I thought that perhaps you hadn't because you kept using the verb "read" rather than "watch" or "listen", which would actually apply to this discussion. I'm quite well aware that binary blobs are required for the CDM. The requirement of a license server and server-side encryption compatible with a client-deployed CDM would still be prohibitive for the "small fish" (after all, if they cared, they could just use Flash or Silverlight like is done today).
- jlgreco 13y ago
  I suppose I am not as confident as you that small fish would stay out of the game. If. I was, my only objection would be that all things proprietary need to stay away from standards.