4 ms·

Quit with the histrionics. You can be passionate without the informationless drama. Read what I wrote again. I never made any claim like Google "were actually

Quit with the histrionics. You can be passionate without the informationless drama. Read what I wrote again. I never made any claim like Google "were actually against it". I said that several of the most outspoken in combatting the proposal in the HTML working group (which is still an editor's draft, btw, and certainly not fait accompli) are employed by Google, and they will likely continue fighting it. Notable among them has been Tab[1] and, not for nothing, hixie[2], the editor of the HTML spec at the WHATWG, where he refuses to put in any sort of DRM to a specification for the open web. That's exactly what you hope to see when a company doesn't force the people it pays to be on a standards body to toe the company line. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0190.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Fe... (with many others on that list) [2] https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBYuj2 https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBY... (see also: posts to public-html)

makomk 13y ago
The simple fact of the matter is, Google were the first company to ship production hardware or software that used HTML5 EME, and what's more it was incredibly locked down. Their HTML5 EME implementation only plays back on approved Chromebook hardware from official suppliers that's locked down from the hardware up to prevent users from running any unauthorized applications on the system. Turning off the restriction on unauthorized code also disables the decryption module. It's thanks to Google that soon there'll be 100% standards compliant HTML5 sites that can only be legally viewed on locked-down, single purpose web browsing machines from approved manufacturers.