Thank you, bzbarsky.  Please help us (me) understand the situation a bit better if you have the time.<p>1. Could you please describe a bit more about the browser-CDM interaction and what is implemented there?<p>2. Why do you think the browser-CDM interaction was left unspecified?  Wouldn&#x27;t a standard be beneficial to all parties, even CDM developers (no need to back-and-forth with browser developers: just follow the standard)?<p>3. For a browser to support a CDM, is a developer required to write CDM-specific browser code?  That is, if CDM APIs are not standardized, then does the browser need to be modified to accommodate each API?  Maybe this is obvious but I can&#x27;t believe this is the state of things.<p>4. I, and I believe many others, have been under the impression from the beginning that EME was intended to globally constrain CDM behaviour.  What you&#x27;ve described in this thread is entirely different.  EME is just an API for CDM-script interaction and nothing more.  Meanwhile, these blobs are integrated into the browser and the extent to which they&#x27;re constrained is up to the browser developers.  Unlike an NPAPI plugin, there is no standard for what they&#x27;re allowed to do or know.<p>It occurs to me now that a standard defining browser-CDM interaction would never come from the W3C as it is simply outside their scope (ie. Web standards, not browser standards).  CDMs can choose where to run today because there wasn&#x27;t enough interest (or coordination) in establishing a standard browser-agnostic environment for them to run in.  Now the CDMs are here, entrenching themselves, and the time to establish this environment is long gone.  Is this an accurate representation?