- From: Emil Lundberg via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:11:11 +0000
- To: public-webauthn@w3.org
Thank you for leaving the LLM. We dismiss its output because it immediately showed that it does not understand the discussion and therefore has nothing of value to add. We consider it a waste of our time to argue with a machine with no capacity for critical thought. > * I have not read a logically understandable argument why OPTIONAL usernames would be a problem - https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1915#issuecomment-1617744129 - https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1915#issuecomment-1625405587 - https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1915#issuecomment-1647710746 - https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1915#issuecomment-1684161276 - https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1915#issuecomment-1684888743 - https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1942#issuecomment-1825291097 - https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1942#issuecomment-1875786933 I'm sorry that we haven't been able to help you understand our arguments, but I believe we have spent more than enough effort trying. The fact that you do not agree does not make these arguments invalid. > * we do not have have some web biometrics capability outside of webauthn This is by definition out of scope for the WebAuthn working group. > At one point, the spec says if we do not need one of these username fields, it SHOULD be set to an empty field. The motivation for this was that [setting `displayName` to empty seemed preferable to setting both `name` and `displayName` to the same value](https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/pull/1932#discussion_r1296167484); the `name` field is still required for the reasons already laid out many times in these threads (see links above). But yes, I do agree that with this in mind it could make sense to make `displayName` optional. I've opened #2024 to track this. But as noted in that issue, this may be a backwards-incompatible change and therefore not something we can feasibly do. > I mean at one point you write "when inherited by"... it should etc... [I agree](https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1915#issuecomment-1625405587) that this is awkward, but changing the WebIDL structure is backwards-incompatible and therefore not worth it for a minor improvement in API aesthetics. > Instead of insults and closing and hiding I apologize if we have failed to notice violations of the [W3C Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct ](https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/) (CEPC). If so, please point out specific instances and we will take action as appropriate. > Sometimes I think some compnies push people who they cannot fire to some jobs like web standard lobby [...] But note that you are also a [participant](https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/#dfn-participant) subject to the CEPC. I would count remarks like the above as [harassment](https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/#dfn-harass) and [insulting behaviour](https://www.w3.org/policies/code-of-conduct/#dfn-insulting) in violation of the CEPC. See this as an informal warning to cease this behaviour. -- GitHub Notification of comment by emlun Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/1942#issuecomment-1943552810 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2024 11:11:14 UTC