Anybody can build a browser that speaks HTTP and can send HTML pages around.
There is no mandate that you integrate DRM to be standards compliant, it's perfectly valid to write a browser that simply says "no" to any requests to perform DRM functions.
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...
You can simply implement a "clear key" system which does not require any CDM.
Just speaking HTTP and partially parsing HTML pages does not a web-browser make.
That's true, but it's not connected to the w3c inclusion in the spec.
People hosing DRM encrypted video could stop your third-party browser from consuming their video with or without the w3c spec provision.
You are free to support whichever content protection systems you want to support. The only DRM mechanism which is part of the standard is clearkey which is DRM in the same way that SSL is DRM, i.e not at all.
Yeah. That sounds really sexy. That sounds like the pinnacle of achievements for open standards.
The HTML5 ECE spec is intended to make sure it's a criminal offence to implement any "content protection" scheme without permission. In the eyes of both W3C and its proponents, that's a non-negotiable feature.
If I write a content protection scheme that runs everything through ROT13 I don't understand why anyone would care.
This proposal only defines how the browser communicates with the module. It does not define, how the module communicates with OS and hardware. These modules will use OS facilities like Vista's protected path. If your OS does not support it (and free software OS like Linux cannot support it by definition), good luck getting it. And even if it supported anti-features like that, the owner may not bother with porting ("not enough market share for you").