Re: JS code examples for ACTION 43

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan Sleevi" <sleevi@google.com>
> To: "David Dahl" <ddahl@mozilla.com>
> Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org Working Group" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 7:00:53 PM
> Subject: Re: JS code examples for ACTION 43
> 
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 4:53 PM, David Dahl <ddahl@mozilla.com> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Ryan Sleevi" <sleevi@google.com>
> >> To: "David Dahl" <ddahl@mozilla.com>
> >> Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org Working Group"
> >> <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:37:51 PM
> >> Subject: Re: JS code examples for ACTION 43
> >>
> >
> >> My concern would be wanting to understand how it affects the
> >> Spec's
> >> overall readability, so seeing it in embedded in place will help
> >> do
> >> that.
> >
> > Absolutely. I sent the github link mainly to get some feedback on
> > the correctness of the examples. Should it be in a single block
> > with an "Example Code" heading?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > David
> 
> I have no strong feelings on this.
> 
> I had thought the examples would have been more on the "here's what
> an
> operation looks like" as opposed to the holistic "Here's what an
> application looks like", but that's an individual preference that I
> failed to communicate. To be clear, I was thinking individual
> examples
> per-operation (which I suppose would be highly redundant for
> CryptoOperation-work), rather than the holistic "Here's an
> application" view.

Indeed, I agree that we should have individual examples per operation. I also think some sample mini-apps will help us and initial reviewers better understand what more than trivial usage looks like.

I will continue to provide small snippets of each operation.

Cheers,

david 

> 
>

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 14:56:59 UTC