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

Re: Spec for RSA-OAEP doesn't say what to do for null or missing or array buffer view labels

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 21:35:15 -0400
Message-ID: <53BDEDD3.5090209@mit.edu>
To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
CC: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
On 7/9/14, 4:16 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> I think we're saying the same thing, just differently, in that algorithm
> normalization allows an ES NULL value to be propagated through, right?

null value.  Yes, for nullable members.

> I didn't think default values were legal for union types
> (CryptoOperationData).

They are legal as long as it's a valid default value for a type in the 

> I also didn't think it was legal for ArrayBuffer/ArrayBufferView, since
> Web IDL currently (AIUI) treats them as object types, and there's no way
> to represent constant object types (which would be needed for default
> value, AIUI)

Yes, I'm saying we should fix this in Web IDL as needed .  More 
importantly, I'm saying that we should not allow Web IDL to constrain 
our API design in cases when it's obviously leading to a worse API.  If 
that happens, that's a problem with Web IDL.

Most simply, we could add some syntax in Web IDL to require a dictionary 
value to be present in a dictionary.  This has come up a few times now.

> Just to make sure linguistically we're on the same page. You're
> proposing I refer to the value of %ArrayBufferPrototype%.slice, right?
> Using the aforementioned table as the definition for %ArrayBufferPrototype%

I think you want "the initial value of %ArrayBufferPrototype%.slice" here.

Received on Thursday, 10 July 2014 01:35:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:23 UTC