- From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 13:49:28 -0800
- To: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
- Cc: Seetharama Rao Durbha <S.Durbha@cablelabs.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, Arun Ranganathan <arun@mozilla.com>, GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote: > > On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Seetharama Rao Durbha <S.Durbha@cablelabs.com> wrote: > >> On 2/8/13 2:04 PM, "Richard Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote: >> >>> If there is going to be a consistent set of algorithms, then the API will have to have requirements for UAs. If there are no requirements for UAs, there is no guarantee of consistency. >> >> I do not think that having a consistent 'naming' is same as 'requiring' the UAs to implement them. > > I will mark you down in camp (A) then :) > > You are certainly correct. However, the argument has been made that the set of names needs to be constrained in order to ensure that web developers have a consistent list of algorithms that they know they can use. That implies that UAs are required to implement the algorithms in the list. > > --Richard No. It implies UAs shouldn't define arbitrary algorithm names to (in)consistently implement the same underlying algorithm.
Received on Friday, 8 February 2013 21:49:54 UTC