W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Prioritization of secondary features

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 13:43:38 +0100
Message-ID: <510A66FA.20700@w3.org>
To: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren@telia.com>
CC: "public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org" <public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org>, Mountie Lee <mountie.lee@gmail.com>
On 01/31/2013 08:37 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
> Hi Mountie & list,
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2013Jan/0081.html
>
> I agree that this is important.
>
> I believe though that the individual items would gain by slightly more "meat" including a connection to use-cases.
>
> Multiple key containers: Although key-containers is my favorite subject there's actually a virtual *ocean* dividing *using* keys and *enrolling* keys unless we are continuing on the path which has [rightfully] been shunned by the market such as W3C's <keygen>:
>
>      http://www.w3.org/TR/html-markup/keygen.html

The obsession with keygen strikes me as odd. It's a legacy feature that 
W3C has never endorsed and best practice is to ignore, as many browsers 
plan never to support. Its included in HTML5 as a legacy feature. I 
think I stated that to you before, Anders, as well as others.

Thanks for reminder though, I'll email HTML5 and make sure that this 
page points that out as its obvious its still causing confusion.

> Disrespecting the fact that the Web Crypto WG doesn't seem to enjoy this topic, I'm 100% sure that the Google wallet doesn't use anything like <keygen>, CMP or similar PKIX-related protocols.  Presumably for a reason...
>
> Thanx
> Anders
>
>
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2013 12:43:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 31 January 2013 12:43:47 GMT