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

Re: JS code examples for ACTION 43

From: David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 12:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Cc: Wan-Teh Chang <wtc@google.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org Working Group" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1241505090.916138.1346961462520.JavaMail.root@mozilla.com>
I have created a diff of the Overview xml file in cvs because my copy of the overview.html after running make looks wrong - as if there is some kind of css problem. Let me know if this works for you. Here is what my rendering looks like: http://www.zimagez.com/zimage/screenshot-09062012-025546pm.php

I have not corrected the SHA-256 algorithm object as I am unsure what the correct AlgorithmParameters are supposed to be. I think the spec says the algorithmParams are null, is that right?

Cheers,

David

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Sleevi" <sleevi@google.com>
To: "David Dahl" <ddahl@mozilla.com>
Cc: "Wan-Teh Chang" <wtc@google.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org Working Group" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 1:58:01 PM
Subject: Re: JS code examples for ACTION 43

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:48 AM, David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ryan Sleevi" <sleevi@google.com>
>> To: "David Dahl" <ddahl@mozilla.com>
>> Cc: "Wan-Teh Chang" <wtc@google.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org Working Group" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
>> Sent: Thursday, September 6, 2012 12:29:40 PM
>> Subject: Re: JS code examples for ACTION 43
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:18 AM, David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I see. Do we need to specify a new event?
>>
>> If we do decide not to support the "shotgun calling", then yes. As
>> mentioned very early on, .processData() may not ever result in output
>> - for example, when performing signature verification (which doesn't
>> happen until .complete()). Being able to shotgun repeated calls to
>> .processData() would be rather useful in that case.
>>
>> I would suggest rather than having onProgress, we'd rename it to some
>> event that is suitably ambiguous as to whether data resuled.
>> onProcessed() perhaps?
>>
> That sounds good. So, not only rename it but also specify that it is fired once the data is completely processed.

Correct (if I understood you correctly)

It's fired once the data given to processData completes, but there may
(or may not) be output resulting from the call.

As opposed to current onProgress, which only fires when output results
from processData.



Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 19:58:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 September 2012 19:58:10 GMT