There is a difference between a product with market power and a standard. A product's lifecycle is always limited and its market share after going up can only g

There is a difference between a product with market power and a standard. A product's lifecycle is always limited and its market share after going up can only go down. Witness Flash, witness IExplorer and ActiveX, witness Symbian. A standard on the other hand can potentially live forever. And all implementations must follow it. And for example, a browser with DRM in it can no longer be fully open-source, which should be reason enough for W3C to not standardize DRM. Plus let's be honest, DRM is fundamentally flawed, its main purpose for which it actually works being the lock-in of honest users, purpose that is incompatible with the concept of a browser. If Netflix wants to serve DRM-ed content, they apparently have no problem in implementing their own thing, so I fail to see what the W3C is trying to solve. And yes, next we'll talk about the Linux kernel, because DRM is only "secure" if the whole chain is "secure". And also if users want Netflix, that's fine, I'm actually happy that it works on Linux now, but I don't want DRM and users may not want DRM forever, as could be seen with MP3s and pushing for standardization is shoving it on people's throats.