- From: Firstyear via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 03:24:32 +0000
- To: public-webauthn@w3.org
> The process I've _personally_ followed in library data structures is to follow the format of the output of toJSON exactly, because to my way of thinking that is effectively the most logical way to guarantee high interoperability (i.e. in this instance the field name is communicated as `clientExtensionResults` in several places). Though that being said I've been working off the editors draft for a while with the increase in requests for level 3 related features, and anticipation that level 3 will be recommended in the near future anyway; which may have an impact. This is kind of my point - toJSON is standardising the format of a request to an RP, so especially for *older* implementations, that were supporting webauthn since L1 and onward (like webauthn-rs) this change is coming as a shock as now we have users calling toJSON then wondering why these formerly undefined struct names aren't being accepted by their webauth library. This is why I am suggesting that we define not just toJSON, but the reverse for an RP and what they expect to see during struct parsing. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Firstyear Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/webauthn/issues/2275#issuecomment-2753144981 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 26 March 2025 03:24:33 UTC