canopic jug writes:
Tim Berners-Lee approved Web DRM yesterday, but W3C member organizations have two weeks to appeal. This was the controversial Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) standard for the WWW known as Encrypted Media Extensions (EME). The last opportunity to stop EME is an appeal by the Advisory Committee of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). An appeal would then trigger a vote from the whole Committee to make a final decision to ratify or reject EME. As an added difficulty Tim Berners-Lee heads the Advisory Committee.
Also at Techdirt and EFF. W3C's "Disposition of Comments for Encrypted Media Extensions and Director's decision".
I disagree, this is perfect example of something that shouldn't even be considered for a standard.
If you and I were magically put on the board discussing the inclusion of DRM in a specific standard, I would be in complete agreement with you. Mostly I'm arguing that you shouldn't be able to use every website in every browser, that the ones you can use in every browser should be allowed to drop functionality in some browsers, and that this is already the case and has been for a (relatively) long time.
This is something that has been done via plug-ins for ages and that's the way that makes the most sense. It makes no sense at all to standardize something that's going to be used by a relatively small number of websites. Especially, given that there's no guarantee that it's going to work on any given browser.
This is an excellent description of videos in 1995.
Browsers have evolved to the point where the things that you can reasonably need to do are mostly supported in standards. The things people gripe about not working reliably are usually things that you shouldn't be doing in the first place. I remember back a couple decades ago where you couldn't do much of anything without coding in a ton of exceptions and special code for various browsers. These days, it's much, much better.
I suspect there are things that will seem obviously necessary in a decade, but that we fail to see right now. MetaMask is still a plug-in. WebVR is in a state of infancy, and it leaks crazy amounts of biometric data. It might not look like these things belong in a browser right now, but we don't know what 2027 looks like. "Browsers" might be dead by then, or they might be radically different.
Still, I fail to see how the fact that it hasn't been completely fixed is justification for introducing things like this that serve no purpose, don't belong in a browser and just introduce additional incompatibilities.
On a case by case basis, I will agree to avoiding mutations which appear bad. I just understand that I can't see clearly, and I don't have the desire to stop an orgainization from going down a rabbit hole that looks dangerous to me. The W3C does not control the internet, they are just one standards body. Let them publish what they will. I doubt anything useful in the long-term will come from it, and I wouldn't expend resources on it, but I'm not concerned about them doing so. I'd rather the money be used exploring a bad rabbit hole than, say, producing a sitcom. It's not a great use of money, but it's maybe slightly useful.
Argh that is an annoying form of comment response.
If you are referring to blockquoting and adding a reply and repeating for subsequent points, I totally disagree with you.
The only problem I have with the style of JNCF is the text blob in his first comment in this (sub)thread.That deserved about 4 paragraph breaks.
...and one more nitpick:I don't approve of anyone giving Internet Exploder a free pass.In their software, MICROS~1 didn't/doesn't follow already-establish standards--even when they were a part of the committee that formalized those standards.
Adding new stuff is one thing; breaking stuff is quite another.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
Yeah, that's totally fair.
That line is fuzzier than it first appears, but I understand what you're saying and I mostly agree.