W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webcrypto@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Is the "Key" interface name too generic?

From: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 19:14:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CACvaWvYdCBTT3H8UKAbJhjPOXPc+cJc=Su=En2mTchrCo+AA2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> Mail, not bug, because this seems like something that needs discussion,
> not just addressing.
> It keeps seeming to me that "Key" is a very generic name and that
> "CryptoKey" or some such would be less ambiguous and less likely to cause
> confusion with other keys in the platform (in ES6, in indexeddb, etc).  I'm
> sure this has been discussed to death in the past; is there a summary of
> the arguments for the current interface name somewhere?
> Thanks,
> Boris
Nope. Hasn't even been discussed really. I'm mostly ambivalent, and am
happy to avoid squatting on a desirable/confusing prototype name.
WebCryptoKey, KeyHandle, CryptoKey, etc. Whatever colour the shed looks
best with.

Note that whatever naming would have knock-on effects to Named Key
Discovery spec. NamedCryptoKey? NamedKeyHandle? NamedWebCryptoKey? Just
play with the prefix/suffix so that it works.
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2014 02:14:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:02:42 UTC