On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > To be clear, we're skeptical that the current form of the API lends > itself well to the type of extension we'd like to perform. We can do it, > but every approach we've tried thus far feels like a hack and we'd > probably end up defining a new API rather than extending the one > currently defined (clearly, that's not a good thing and we want to avoid > that). > That's disappointing to hear. We've made a number of compromises in the API in order to increase the flexibility for the kinds of extensions David (CC'd) has asked for in https://github.com/w3c/webappsec/issues/256. Since there hasn't been substantive discussion on that bug since Friday, I thought we were pretty close to being on the same page. I look forward to seeing the sorts of ideal data structures and APIs from your groups, but I'm wary of what sounds increasingly like a complete rewrite. and now that it's > clear that the WebAppSec group intends to coordinate with those two > other groups, I'm happy to support publication of the FPWD. I agree that we should publish an FPWD to kick off the exclusion period regardless of the detail discussion about the exact words and shape of the API. -mike -- Mike West <mkwst@google.com>, @mikewest Google Germany GmbH, Dienerstrasse 12, 80331 München, Germany, Registergericht und -nummer: Hamburg, HRB 86891, Sitz der Gesellschaft: Hamburg, Geschäftsführer: Graham Law, Christine Elizabeth Flores (Sorry; I'm legally required to add this exciting detail to emails. Bleh.)Received on Thursday, 23 April 2015 15:46:34 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:48 UTC