- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:07:30 +0200
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Apr 15, 2009, at 21:00 , Jonas Sicking wrote:
> This is a really bad reason not to rework the widget signing spec. I
> really hope that there are other more technical reasons that is
> keeping us from reworking the spec.
It's not an ideal reason, but it's not a bad one. This specification
has been in the works for a fair while and people have had a chance to
comment. I wasn't on the WG when using JAR was discussed but it was,
and it was rejected.
We (the WG) have committed to a timeline, we made promises, and people
outside of the WG have made decisions based on this commitment. There
was no objection to doing this at the time. It doesn't help us to be
fickle.
From an implementer's point of view, I think that the situation is
fairly simple: implementers who intend to ship on mobile devices (that
is, pretty much everyone, though I don't know what the plan is for
Fennec) will have to support what OMTP Bondi mandates for signatures
because it's a terminal requirement. If W3C deviates from its time
commitment and announced feature-stability, what will happen is that
Bondi will just take the current draft, make a few minor edits, and
ship that. That means implementers will have to support both what we
have today, and what we could change to. Chances are, in practice,
that's going to be a fair bit more complex than just supporting the
one thing.
--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 13:08:05 UTC