Hacker News Reader

Comment by RexRollman | Hacker News Reader

Well, my question is does HTML even need to encompass everything it does. It seems to me that we have an ever expanding monster. HTML does not have to be everything for everyone.

View on HN

I thought that was more-or-less what was being discussed. My understanding was that the media element being accessed would not play the stream unless a specified DRM component was available, most often due to a plugin installed to the browser. It wasn't that they wanted DRM in the open web, they wanted the open web to have the ability to communicate with a third-party DRM. A third-party solution that an individual can decline to install and not participate.

>> A third-party solution that an individual can decline to install and not participate.

A third party solution that they can't get hold of because the 'official' one only runs on windows and intel, and the ps4.

So? If they don't provide the content you wish to see in a way that's convenient for you but is convenient for the mass of their market I fail to see the problem. If you want to see the content bad enough then you accept the requirements. Otherwise, it says more for you to not participate by not giving money. As more people do this, things will change.

So we shouldn't encourage its addition to open standards.

If it's in the standards to explain how to implement it and make use of it but it's implemented as a third-party item that's up to the individual to decide whether to install or not, what difference does it make? We're eventually going to get that anyway so why not know how it works upfront?

Plus, from what I've read Chrome should start losing market share immediately because it already has a form of EME implemented. All these people in an uproar over the W3C's decision should be switching to something else to show their concern.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com