- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 14:56:03 +0200
- To: "henry.story@bblfish.net" <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: > >> On 1 Sep 2015, at 19:56, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> >> As far as I can tell, therefore, things here are working exactly as one >> should expect. > > Indeed: they seem to be working as one would expect where one thinking that forces > that don't like asymetric key cryptography to be widely deployed were trying to > remove that capability as far as possible. The manner of doing this - by secret > evidence, and pointers to closed non deployed standards - seems to be very much > the way of doing of organisations that like to keep things secret and closed. This is borderline conspiratorial and is really not helpful. The first message in the blink-dev thread [1] nicely summarizes the motivation. If you distrust that and think that something more sinister is going on, fine, but that's no way to have a fruitful discussion. Lots of things have been removed from specs and implementations following roughly the same "process", which is that some implementor realizes that they'd like to remove something, check if other implementors are on board, and then ask to have the spec changed. [1] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/pX5NbX0Xack/kmHsyMGJZAMJ Philip
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2015 12:56:30 UTC