W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > September 2012

Re: JS code examples for ACTION 43

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 17:00:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CACvaWvaL=-kzZf8vHoa5b5MGpHA_Y_GzDef=_D7WqMf42Wd_3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com>
Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org Working Group" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:53 PM, David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ryan Sleevi" <sleevi@google.com>
>> To: "David Dahl" <ddahl@mozilla.com>
>> Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org Working Group" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:37:51 PM
>> Subject: Re: JS code examples for ACTION 43
>>
>
>> My concern would be wanting to understand how it affects the Spec's
>> overall readability, so seeing it in embedded in place will help do
>> that.
>
> Absolutely. I sent the github link mainly to get some feedback on the correctness of the examples. Should it be in a single block with an "Example Code" heading?
>
> Cheers,
>
> David

I have no strong feelings on this.

I had thought the examples would have been more on the "here's what an
operation looks like" as opposed to the holistic "Here's what an
application looks like", but that's an individual preference that I
failed to communicate. To be clear, I was thinking individual examples
per-operation (which I suppose would be highly redundant for
CryptoOperation-work), rather than the holistic "Here's an
application" view.
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 00:01:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 September 2012 00:01:22 GMT