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.
> :-(

Yes, and while CR phase requires only two interoperable implementatons, 
W3C of course wants important APIs like Crypto API to be implemented
*across* all major browsers, which of course includes Chrome.

And if you are planning to use the API for real-world use-cases, IBM
should join the Working Group.

   cheers,
      harry

>
> 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
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 11:09:12 UTC