On 2014-05-17 05:33, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 5/16/14, 9:41 PM, Jim wrote:
Henri seems rather hard to understand, but he seems to have promoted
the
EME in the end.
There's a difference between "accepting" and "promoting".
Mozilla did not even put up a fight so it seems very fair to judge
Mozilla as promoting the EME. Mozilla had other choices and had the
choice to do nothing, but they chose to add DRM to the web using the
EME.
Look at the yourself. All I see is resistance from Mozilla to getting a
better outcome for user security and privacy. The management statements
are deceptive propaganda - how is this helping the mission?
Did you ever make a statement on the EME?
http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?keywords=drm&hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=&hdr-2-name=from&hdr-2-query=bzbarsky%40mit.edu&hdr-3-name=message-id&hdr-3-query=&period_month=&period_year=&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-html&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date
are the public things I said.
Three passing comments does not demonstrate any heart or fight. You have
made more posts defending Mozilla's decision to implement the EME!
The point is that Mozilla's representative has done nothing!
Are you sure? TAG proceedings are not public last I checked.
Check again, the TAG document on the EME is on github and discussion is
on a public mailing list. I do not see any input from Mozilla's
representative David.
The public might not know 'how TBL will decide on such formal
objections'
The public doesn't care about W3C process at all.
I disagree, and this is not a reason for Mozilla to support the EME at
the W3C.
and Mozilla could have at least called him out.
I believe we have. The "public" didn't care, even the restricted
public that follows W3C goings on.
You should know that only a formal objection has any standing.
I disagree that following them is 'the least bad option', and it is
certainly not the only option Mozilla had.
What is your counterproposal?
I summarized my understanding of the proposal in my last email to you.
Check the W3C mailing list archives to see the discussion there. My
point is that Mozilla did not even try.
Mozilla could have mitigated the annoyance, and been in a better place
with users, without supporting the addition of DRM to the web.
Again, how would you do that, specifically?
Firefox could recognize media needing DRM decoding and launch a separate
media player. This could be made as convenient as possible and could
support features that would not work with the EME such as a giving users
a choice of the target device and these features could be used promote
an alternative. This would keep DRM out of the web which would be
aligned with Mozilla's mission and be something that Mozilla could
honestly be proud of. Netflix might refuse to support an alternative web
standard, but it need not be a conflict with content owners and market
forces would work to correct this.
Jim
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
