Follow

Three years after the W3C approved a DRM standard, it's no longer possible to make a functional indie browser boingboing.net/2020/01/08/rip-

@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)?

@yogthos
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
Mastodon

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!