3 ms·
> You mean for developers? More for concerned citizens. There is a difference between add-on code for particular proprietary content platforms, and writing DR
by tragic 12y ago
> You mean for developers?
More for concerned citizens.
There is a difference between add-on code for particular proprietary content platforms, and writing DRM support into the web standard. Not implementing a Flash plugin doesn't break compliance with the 'official' browser standards - not bunging in the EME stuff will, presuming it gets fully adopted.
That, as I understand it, is the real point of controversy in this whole thing - whether DRM belongs in web standards. Mozilla was fighting it, uniquely among major browser vendors so far as I know; this move means that they've basically given in.
Whether they are right or wrong to do so is another matter.
- eli 12y agoCitizens who are concerned about browser standards? I'm having a hard time picturing this. It's hard enough getting developers to care about official standards. When I click play on a movie in Chrome, I don't know (or care) whether it's using Chrome's embedded Flash or an "open" HTML5 video tag or some crazy proprietary thing. I only care when it doesn't work.
- tragic 12y ago> Citizens who are concerned about browser standards? I'm having a hard time picturing this. It's hard enough getting developers to care about official standards. Are not the hundreds of people who responded to this thread citizens of somewhere or other? Are they not concerned?