Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
by gbhn on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @12:35AM
(#7055565)
How about the embed tag? What big differences do you see between implementing EME vs the embed tag?
Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
by Rizz on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @02:14AM
(#7055817)
One difference is that with embed you can still support most existing platforms by implementing NSAPI.
Re:Requirements for DRM in HTML are confidential
by gbhn on Tuesday January 14, 2014 @01:00PM
(#7058559)
My reading is that ESE is intended to work in much the same way -- the main work is done by the Content Decryption Module, which is more plugin-like. And indeed, the way existing DRM-using systems work in the browser is with the embed tag.
The spec says "The Content Decryption Module (CDM) is a generic term for a part of or add-on to the user agent that provides functionality for one or more Key Systems."
Say the W3C decided to add a new tag to HTML, called '<happy>', that displays a smiling face. Anyone who wishes (Firefox, Mozilla, you, me) could implement that feature and start properly displaying content that contains <happy> tags.
This is not true of encrypted content that requires a proprietary, closed-source CDM and / or a secret key to operate.
That is why EME should be rejected by the W3C. Lack of Linux support is a consequence of the problem, not the problem itself.