- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:18:04 +0000
- To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Cc: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>, Yehuda Katz <wycats@gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote: > Obviously, I'm biased. However, hopefully the TAG can provide their input > and guidance on the design of this, because it's clear that there's no > progress being made in the WG on this issue. This is rather unfortunate, but > since much of the debate is on a matter of "design smells" (whether it is or > is not a smell to support the two methods simultaneously, whether it is or > is not a smell to require Encoding spec), the TAG seems uniquely qualified > to provide input. When would you want the ArrayBuffer? If you want it frequently and performance is critical you might want to expose that. If not, it seems exposing just the object is fine. Note that you could also expose an actual object and define its toJSON... Also, somewhat related, why are Key objects not something you can transfer/copy through postMessage? Someone keeps bringing up "local CORS" over on public-webappsec http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webappsec/2014Mar/thread.html#msg9 but it seems like he really wants a way for crypto objects to passed around. -- http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 24 March 2014 17:18:32 UTC