Re: [credential management] Identity Credentials API Extension

On 06/01/2015 08:35 AM, Mike West wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 5:32 AM, Manu Sporny 
> < <>> 
> 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
> 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, your read is more or less on point.

If you look at the end of the document, we raise a number of discussion

We were hoping to have a thorough discussion with you to see if our read
on the API was correct before suggesting changes to the WebIDL. For
example, if you look at #5, it suggests that a Promise may need to
resolve to more than just a Credential or undefined. It may need to
resolve to a page navigation object. That's a fairly simple change to
the WebIDL (that has broad ramifications).

We could propose an "ideal set of WebIDL changes" now, but wanted to
have a discussion with you before we did that so we didn't propose
something off base.

That said, I'm hearing Brad say "don't bother, the goals are too
divergent". So, now I'm confused. Do you want us to suggest changes, or
is this the end of the conversation? There's no point in us doing more
work on this if there is no chance for it to be integrated.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice

Received on Monday, 1 June 2015 14:00:15 UTC