- From: Mike West <mkwst@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:35:59 +0200
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: "public-webappsec@w3.org" <public-webappsec@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 1 June 2015 12:36:48 UTC
Hi all! I'm catching up on the ~3ish threads that popped up, and plan to compose something that's actually responsive to the last few day's discussion this afternoon. This jumped out at me, though: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > the WebIDL would only need to go through a few changes to support our > extension only to find out that our extension isn't the sort of > extension that the CM API was designed for. > Could you clarify what changes you'd like to see in this document's WebIDL? I read https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tI0CJ4wAKKPQacrxOmTtl_GQUBeVtbg8e1ZSXs2SWag/edit?pli=1 as sketching an extension to the API within the confines of the extension points we've built in together, targeting a fleshed-out implementation in a document you'd produce in a to-be-chartered WG. Is that not the case? Which pieces were intended to change the underlying API? -mike
Received on Monday, 1 June 2015 12:36:48 UTC