Three years after the W3C approved a DRM standard, it's no longer possible to make a functional indie browser

@yogthos wait, is DRM required to make a "functional browser"? what does that mean?

@ben If you want a browser to be compliant with the W3C standard, and be able to access certain information, like streaming Netflix

@Waces so the definition of "functional browser" is "works with a specific site designed to not work with it"?

if W3C standards were mandatory, Twitter would be federating by now.

@ben It's more like a guideline and "seal of approval" than an actual requirement. Supposedly to have a set of open standards so no one single proprietary provider monopolizes the web (and what a plot twist now, :P)

@yogthos hm...

I wonder about the feasibility of... how can I say this...

domain-specific browsers? maybe?

rather than having many browsers implement the whole browser thing, instead have different browsers implement different subsets of the whole browser thing. have a separate "webform browser" for browsing and submitting webforms, and so on.

bonus points: it's basically impossible to run tracking and multimedia ads on such a "platform"

@yogthos Are you the guy who just posted this in the -offtopic earlier?

@yogthos I think it would be really good to see some indie browsers that deliberately _don't_ implement Encrypted Media Extensions. Are new browsers in any way required to implement the entire standard? And could the W3C standards be forked (An even more exciting prospect imo)?

First, may I admit I skimmed the article? I only glanced it over..

To promote the vision of W3C DRM will need to be open source and utilize the Blockchain or a similar technology. Using proprietary DRM as standard is practically turning in the keys.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!