So far it ain’t so, but some form of DRM in HTML is becoming a more likely possibility every day.

The W3C’s HTML Working Group recently decided that a proposal to add DRM to HTML media elements — formally known as the Encrypted Media Extensions proposal — is indeed within its purview and the group will be working on it.

That doesn’t mean that the Encrypted Media Extensions proposal will become a standard as is, but it does up the chances that some sort of DRM system will make its way into HTML.

The Encrypted Media Extensions proposal — which is backed by the likes of Google, Microsoft, Netflix and dozens of other media giants — technically does not add DRM to HTML. Instead it defines a framework for bringing a DRM system, or “protected media content” as the current draft puts it, to the web.

If you think the idea of DRM seems antithetical to the inherently open nature of HTML, you’re not alone. Ian Hickson, former editor of the W3C’s HTML spec, has called the Encrypted Media Extensions proposal “unethical.” Hickson is no longer in charge of the W3C’s HTML spec, but HTML WG member Manu Sporny, has already asked the WG not to publish the first working draft because the “specification does not solve the problem the authors are attempting to solve.”

There are numerous problems with the Encrypted Media Extensions proposal, including the basic fact that, historically, DRM doesn’t work.

Other problems specific to the current draft of the proposal include the fact that it might well be impossible for open source web browsers to implement without relying on closed source components. Then there are the gaping security flaws that would make it trivially easy to defeat the currently defined system.

But Sporny raises a far more ominous objection — that the proposal in its current form does not actually define a DRM system. Instead it proposes a common API, which would most likely lead to a proliferation of DRM plugins. Here’s Sporny’s take:

The EME specification does not specify a DRM scheme in the specification, rather it explains the architecture for a DRM plug-in mechanism. This will lead to plug-in proliferation on the Web. Plugins are something that are detrimental to inter-operability because it is inevitable that the DRM plugin vendors will not be able to support all platforms at all times. So, some people will be able to view content, others will not.

That sounds a lot like the bad old days when you needed Flash, Real Player, Windows Media Player and dozens of other little plugins installed just to watch a video.

That’s a web no user wants to return to.

At the same time there continue to be companies which believe DRM is essential to their bottom line and the web offers no solution. That’s why Flash, Silverlight and other DRM-friendly plugins remain the media players of choice for many content providers.

So the question of DRM on the web boils down to this: should the W3C continue to work on a spec that defines some kind of DRM system or should the interested companies go off and do their own work? For its part the W3C clearly wants to be part of the process, though it remains unclear what, if any, value a standards-based DRM system might have for web users.