No, the W3C is the web. You'd be forking to what?
This was basically wanted by Firefox, Apple, Microsoft and Google. They are the modern web. Trying to go against them is how we ended up with XHTML, a standard no-one really wanted, or implemented.
This was basically wanted by Firefox, Apple, Microsoft and Google. They are the modern web. Trying to go against them is how we ended up with XHTML, a standard no-one really wanted, or implemented.
Not accurate. EME was created and driven by Google, Microsoft and Netflix, as you can see here:
https://www.w3.org/TR/encrypted-media/
Firefox opposed it very strongly, and only gave in and implemented it when it was clear that all other browsers were behind it - at that point the battle was already lost.
When the EFF says
> The W3C process has been abused by companies that made their fortunes by upsetting the established order, and now, thanks to EME, they’ll be able to ensure no one ever subjects them to the same innovative pressures.
It is safe to assume the companies the EFF refers to are Google and Microsoft.
This was absolutely NOT wanted by Firefox.
They were the only browser to represent the users in this fight.
Don't put Mozilla in the same group as those other traitors.
They were folding, too.
They rather lost a unique selling point. Not implementing EME/DRM is a form of protection of the user against malware.
This really matters because so many of those exploits relied on other features to actually run the payload. Not having any of those in the first place is a big attack surface reduction, even if the politics are legitimately debatable.
A well-hidden build of Firefox to silence the people who accuse the Mozilla Foundation of betraying their principles...
"Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM on demand, with user permission, to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM. The CDM runs in a separate container called a sandbox and you will be notified when a CDM is in use. You can also disable a CDM and opt out of future updates by following the steps below. Once you disable a CDM, however, sites using this type of DRM may not operate properly."
But they ended up including DRM in their browser. So they're traitors and hypocrites, right?
And who was WHATWG? Oh right, exactly the same companies that now voted for DRM as W3C standard. And why could they do WHATWG? Because they are the vendors of the majority browsers.
Ian Hickson also came out strongly against DRM when this whole debate started: https://plus.google.com/+IanHickson/posts/iPmatxBYuj2
Look at the history of their standards, and the direction that the web has actually gone.
The power for where the web goes is in the hands of web developers and browser developers. The W3C documents some things, but they are not a major player.
"L'etat, c'est moi" - until a new state comes to power.
The web is its users.
The history of wide scale, maintainable, free speech just hasn't worked. Ever. Why should computers be any different?