[governance] Digital restrictions management in HTML standards

[Catherine Roy]

FYI, the Chairs of the W3C HTML Working Group have announced their 
decision yesterday to publish the Encrypted Media Extension (EME) as 
First Public Working Draft[1]. What this basically means is that the EME 
spec is at the first step in the recommendation track though it may not 
make it to the end. Is also means that the process now calls for a 
review of the spec by the community and bugs can be filed in order to 
improve the spec or correct any errors. Formal objections may also be 
filed though I suspect these will likely come later in the process[2]. 
There is, as you all know, a lot of controversy around this extension 
specification but at this point, I doubt that will change the W3C's 
position on this issue as evidenced in their latest blog post on the 
matter[3]. It is useful to remember that HTML5, despite not being an 
official W3C Recommendation yet, is being widely deployed, or parts thereof.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013May/0030.html

[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr

[3] http://www.w3.org/QA/2013/05/perspectives_on_encrypted_medi.html


-- 
Catherine Roy
http://www.catherine-roy.net



On 10/05/2013 4:46 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>
> Are there any objections to Avri's proposal below?
>
> (If we have consensus on this general course of action, I think that
> the next steps on this would be informal editing and then a consensus
> process to create a bit of fluff text on what is the IGC etc., to go
> along with with the sentence that expresses support for the petition.)
>
> Greetings,
> Norbert
>
> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote on 28 Apr 2013:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have personally signed and would support a statement if we could
>> say something that like:
>>
>> "
>> The IGC is ...*.
>> The participants in the IGC support this petition.
>>
>> signed
>> {set of those who endorse - individuals and organizational
>> participants} "
>>
>> Any more and we would probably be involved in substantive issues.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> * do we have a canned "who the IGC is" stmt - or is that a
>> substantive issue?
>>
>> On 28 Apr 2013, at 18:00, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>>
>>> What are the views about the idea of in addition issuing a brief
>>> IGC statement in support of this petition or with a message similar
>>> to it?
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Norbert
>>>
>>>
>>> Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Many people here may wish to sign this petition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5
>>>>
>>
>



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t