| 10:40 | <leclerc> | I'm curious what WHATWG thinks of the newly accepted W3C EME https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/ |
| 10:41 | <KiChjang> | leclerc, in short, not good https://blog.whatwg.org/drm-and-web-security |
| 10:41 | <leclerc> | KiChjang: thank you |
| 10:44 | <leclerc> | KiChjang: I'm confused what this means for W3C, how can they make a standard for DRM that browser vendors refuse? |
| 10:44 | <leclerc> | I mean, what's the point of them even going with it. |
| 10:45 | <leclerc> | It'll only make them look even less relevant. |
| 10:45 | <KiChjang> | unfortunately i don't think i'm the right person who can give an adequate answer to that |
| 10:45 | <KiChjang> | Domenic or annevk may be able to |
| 10:45 | <Domenic> | All browsers implement EME |
| 10:46 | <Domenic> | There are many standards created at the W3C that are not paid attention to by browser vendors. EME is not one of those. |
| 10:47 | <leclerc> | Is they implement EME, then what's even the controversy about. |
| 10:47 | <leclerc> | If* |
| 10:48 | <KiChjang> | the blog post actually says so in the last few paragraphs - it's about not suing security researchers who study EME |
| 10:50 | <leclerc> | Installing EME agents... I can't think of a browser that allows users to do that. Which means the vendors themselves choose what agent to embed. |
| 10:50 | <leclerc> | Or am I wrong. |
| 10:59 | <gsnedders> | leclerc: yes, CDMs are not generally installable components |
| 11:00 | <leclerc> | gsnedders: thanks |