3 ms·

> The only benefit I can see from standardizing something is that browser makers who want to claim to be compliant actually have to support it, so you won't end

by fafner 13y ago

> The only benefit I can see from standardizing something is that browser makers who want to claim to be compliant actually have to support it, so you won't end up in the flash/silverlight situation where some platforms don't support it. Please read the spec. Your assumption is wrong! The EME just defines an API for JavaScript to access an unspecified CDM (the DRM module) in the browser. It does not specify how the DRM should work (it would be by definition impossible). It does not specify how a browser should acquire or handle the CDM. Therefore EME will not only ruin the open Web. But it will be less portable than Flash. At least Flash somehow works on Linux.

alkonaut 13y ago
You misunderstood me, I think if there should be standardization of some kind of platform indepndent "plugin" it should address what flash, applets, ActiveX and Silverlight does but in a standardized way.
- fafner 13y ago
  It is - by definition - not possible to have an open standard or libre implementation for DRM. You could simply implement it to dump the stream instead of displaying it. If you mean the features besides DRM then we don't need a plugin because HTML5 and JavaScript are perfectly fine for replacing those plugins and they can be openly implemented and distributed.
  - alkonaut 13y ago
    I mean a standard way of distributing binary executables where anything the plugin author wants can be done (within a sandbox). For example the decoding and display of protected data. Much like flash, but with some form of standardized bytecode vm. I understand that the implementation if the actual DRM will probably be closed, but the plugin standard that hosts the DRM code should not have to be. Apart from allowing closed binary applications it should of course offer some other benefit over javascript, such as offering good hardware support (true multithreading with shared data, access to all peripherals, and so on). Javascript even with WebGL+WebWorkers+similar frameworks isn't it.

by fafner 13y ago

alkonaut 13y ago

You misunderstood me, I think if there should be standardization of some kind of platform indepndent "plugin" it should address what flash, applets, ActiveX and Silverlight does but in a standardized way.

fafner 13y ago
It is - by definition - not possible to have an open standard or libre implementation for DRM. You could simply implement it to dump the stream instead of displaying it. If you mean the features besides DRM then we don't need a plugin because HTML5 and JavaScript are perfectly fine for replacing those plugins and they can be openly implemented and distributed.
- alkonaut 13y ago
  I mean a standard way of distributing binary executables where anything the plugin author wants can be done (within a sandbox). For example the decoding and display of protected data. Much like flash, but with some form of standardized bytecode vm. I understand that the implementation if the actual DRM will probably be closed, but the plugin standard that hosts the DRM code should not have to be. Apart from allowing closed binary applications it should of course offer some other benefit over javascript, such as offering good hardware support (true multithreading with shared data, access to all peripherals, and so on). Javascript even with WebGL+WebWorkers+similar frameworks isn't it.