Re: Question re CR phase implementations of [WebCryptoAPI]

Hi Ryan,
My apologies. Someone else actually asked me if they should look further 
into Web Crypto API, and I meant to tell that person to double-check if 
Chromium meant also Chrome, since the deprecation of the plugin API in 
Chrome is what is causing that person to have to look for alternatives. 
Thank you for taking the time to point out that the Chromium 
implementation does indeed mean that he'll have a possible solution path.
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
IBM Distinguished Engineer & IBM Master Inventor
@johnboyerphd | boyerj@ca.ibm.com




From:   Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
To:     John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, 
Cc:     "public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org" 
<public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org>
Date:   05/28/2014 04:45 PM
Subject:        Re: Question re CR phase implementations of [WebCryptoAPI]



Can you please explain what you mean? I fear you may be confused about the 
distinction between Chromium and Chrome.

Chrome is a browser based upon Chromium. That is, what Chromium 
implements, Chrome does to. That is, as Chromium notes on 
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/wiki/ChromiumBrowserVsGoogleChrome ("In 
short, Google Chrome is the Chromium open source project built, packaged, 
and distributed by Google")

Source: I work on Chromium for Google.


On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 4:39 PM, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
Oh, oops, looks like that's Chromium, rather than Chrome... 
I think that's not the same thing, so you may need to check. 
According to W3C process, they have enough implementers to go to standard 
without Chrome. 
:-( 

John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
IBM Distinguished Engineer & IBM Master Inventor
@johnboyerphd | boyerj@ca.ibm.com




From:        Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> 
To:        John Boyer/CanWest/IBM@IBMCA, 
Cc:        "public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org" <
public-webcrypto-comments@w3.org> 
Date:        05/28/2014 02:34 PM 
Subject:        Re: Question re CR phase implementations of [WebCryptoAPI] 








On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:28 PM, John Boyer <boyerj@ca.ibm.com> wrote: 
Hello Ryan, Mark, et al. 

Now that last call period has ended, it seems likely that CR 
implementation/test phase will begin soon. 

I don't know about that :) There's a lot of feedback from LC to process. 
  


I'd like to get a sense of whether technologies based on this 
specification could be consumed by a particular product. 
This would be governed by whether web browsers will support this, 
particularly for those web browsers that foresee deprecating support of 
the plugin API.  The particular product currently uses a plugin to provide 
digital signing capability to the JS layer.  An implementation of this 
specification seems to provide a promising alternative. 

Does the WG have a sense of which members will be providing an 
implementation report to support CR exit?  If so, can you share it now? 

Thanks, 
John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
IBM Distinguished Engineer & IBM Master Inventor
@johnboyerphd | boyerj@ca.ibm.com 

If you're asking for "who is implementing" 
- IE has shipped a prefixed version on an earlier API. According to 
http://status.modern.ie/webcryptoapi , they're implementing. I have no 
idea about current work (on promises), but it sounds... promising. 
- Safari is implementing - 
https://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/2013-October/025707.html 
- Firefox is implementing - 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=865789 
- Chromium is implementing - 
https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=245025