- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 02:20:12 +0000
- To: public-script-coord@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23369 --- Comment #26 from Domenic Denicola <domenic@domenicdenicola.com> --- The question is, could interop survive with the undefined behavior Allen suggests? I am not so sure. For example, let's say that in browser A the code given always produces ciphertext for [0, 1, 2, 3], whereas browser B has implemented an optimization that ~10% of the time produces ciphertext for [4, 1, 2, 3]. Users will find sites that break 10% of the time in browser B, and then browser game theory comes into play, causing browser B to drop their optimization. At that point we may as well have specced to always produce ciphertext for [0, 1, 2, 3]; the undefined behavior has acquired a de-facto required definition. I am wary of the performance perils of excessive copying as well, but I don't think undefined behavior can survive long on the web. Furthermore, it's worth pointing out that if browsers would get around to implementing copy-on-write for array buffers, then the copying behavior would be free in the usual case (where the JS programmer does not mutate the array buffer after giving it to web crypto). I have heard implementers say COW is hard and not likely to get done any time soon, but I haven't heard them say that it's impossible or incompatible with the design of typed arrays. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 02:20:13 UTC