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

Re: DOM Dependency

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:20:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CACvaWvbuHrLAeEbTnYuOk9=RrhkB7uAEkfN5k_ufc+htJ67_kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com>
Cc: David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>, Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>, Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:17 AM, GALINDO Virginie
<Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> It seems to me that the ISSUE-10 describes the request from Anthony : http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/10 This issue was raised at last summer F2F meeting in Santa Clara, and we said that it would be nice to make sure we are addressing any environment, browser based or not browser-based. Unfortunately, we did not have any proposal to formally review the spec, with that constraint.
>
> Personally I don’t remember non-browser framework were considered as out of scope during our discussion in Santa Clara and on the other hand, when the charter was designed, this case was not mentioned -which could explain why the webapp case is so popular in it.  We can argue hours about the charter interpretation but I think that we should start with a pragmatic approach to that.
>
> Is there any reasonable technical solution to cope with that constraint, that can be managed in a timeframe which fits with our deliverable roadmap ? Any proposal from the WG participants ?

Hi Virginie,

I'm not sure I understand this question you're asking.

Are you suggesting that non-browser use cases are in scope, until
established otherwise, or that they're out of scope, until proposals
emerge that make them in scope?

>
> Regards,
> Virginie
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Dahl [mailto:ddahl@mozilla.com]
> Sent: mercredi 20 février 2013 07:50
> To: Anthony Nadalin
> Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org; Alex Russell; Ryan Sleevi
> Subject: Re: DOM Dependency
>
> I am trying to imagine node.js mocking/implementing (properly) the EventTarget interface. That does not seem like it will work too well.
>
> That being said, the WorkerCrypto interface might work better in a non-browser environment as a worker will not be as tied to the DOM.
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthony Nadalin" <tonynad@microsoft.com>
> To: "Ryan Sleevi" <sleevi@google.com>
> Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org, "Alex Russell" <slightlyoff@google.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:22:20 PM
> Subject: RE: DOM Dependency
>
> It has been discussed many times in this WG, the browser is not the only target for the APIs, stand-alone and server side are also targets, the specification should not have a dependency on DOM and a bug should be opened to resolve this.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:30 PM
> To: Anthony Nadalin
> Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org; Alex Russell
> Subject: Re: DOM Dependency
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> And also tasked for standalone environments so we should not have this
>> dependency as this is not a JS dependency
>
> Can you point that out in the charter?
>
> We're talking about the same dependency found in HTML - namely, the notion of a sane event model.
>
> I'd be curious to see how you would propose an asynchronous API without events and without re-inventing events through some specification-specific dialect.
>
> The phrase "Web Application" appears nine times in our charter, so surely this is not being seen as some new requirement. It's been this way since the start.
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2013 18:21:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 February 2013 18:21:04 GMT