RE: DOM Dependency

so in order to have a proposal we have to have an issue, not sure issue 10 captures all the points here. I will look over issue 10 and see. The technical contribution would come in the form of spec updates to remove DOM dependency, right now there is a explicit statement in the API that DOM MUST be supported, that would be removed.

Sent from Windows Mail

From: GALINDO Virginie
Sent: ‎February‎ ‎26‎, ‎2013 ‎10‎:‎39‎ ‎AM
To: Ryan Sleevi
CC: David Dahl, public-webcrypto@w3.org, Anthony Nadalin, Alex Russell
Subject: RE: DOM Dependency

Ryan,

> Are you suggesting that non-browser use cases are in scope, until established otherwise, or that they're out of
> scope, until proposals emerge that make them in scope?

I think that none of your proposal fit with my mail :).

I am not trying to decide if it is in or out of scope of the charter as I think it has been treated as a grey zone. I remind that we raised the issue-10 about "non-browser environment" 10 months ago, and no one said that "non-browser environment" was out of scope - which means probably that it was not that clear in the charter.

My mail is a call for technical contribution (to replace charter interpretation never ending discussion that I see coming). If there is no contribution that the WG and editors feel reasonable, we will not address the non-browser environment.

Does it clarify ?

Regards,
Virginie


-----Original Message-----
From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
Sent: mardi 26 février 2013 19:21
To: GALINDO Virginie
Cc: David Dahl; public-webcrypto@w3.org; Anthony Nadalin; Alex Russell
Subject: Re: DOM Dependency

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 10:17 AM, GALINDO Virginie <Virginie.GALINDO@gemalto.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> It seems to me that the ISSUE-10 describes the request from Anthony : http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/10 This issue was raised at last summer F2F meeting in Santa Clara, and we said that it would be nice to make sure we are addressing any environment, browser based or not browser-based. Unfortunately, we did not have any proposal to formally review the spec, with that constraint.
>
> Personally I don't remember non-browser framework were considered as out of scope during our discussion in Santa Clara and on the other hand, when the charter was designed, this case was not mentioned -which could explain why the webapp case is so popular in it.  We can argue hours about the charter interpretation but I think that we should start with a pragmatic approach to that.
>
> Is there any reasonable technical solution to cope with that constraint, that can be managed in a timeframe which fits with our deliverable roadmap ? Any proposal from the WG participants ?

Hi Virginie,

I'm not sure I understand this question you're asking.

Are you suggesting that non-browser use cases are in scope, until established otherwise, or that they're out of scope, until proposals emerge that make them in scope?

>
> Regards,
> Virginie
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Dahl [mailto:ddahl@mozilla.com]
> Sent: mercredi 20 février 2013 07:50
> To: Anthony Nadalin
> Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org; Alex Russell; Ryan Sleevi
> Subject: Re: DOM Dependency
>
> I am trying to imagine node.js mocking/implementing (properly) the EventTarget interface. That does not seem like it will work too well.
>
> That being said, the WorkerCrypto interface might work better in a non-browser environment as a worker will not be as tied to the DOM.
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthony Nadalin" <tonynad@microsoft.com>
> To: "Ryan Sleevi" <sleevi@google.com>
> Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org, "Alex Russell" <slightlyoff@google.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:22:20 PM
> Subject: RE: DOM Dependency
>
> It has been discussed many times in this WG, the browser is not the only target for the APIs, stand-alone and server side are also targets, the specification should not have a dependency on DOM and a bug should be opened to resolve this.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Sleevi [mailto:sleevi@google.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:30 PM
> To: Anthony Nadalin
> Cc: public-webcrypto@w3.org; Alex Russell
> Subject: Re: DOM Dependency
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> And also tasked for standalone environments so we should not have
>> this dependency as this is not a JS dependency
>
> Can you point that out in the charter?
>
> We're talking about the same dependency found in HTML - namely, the notion of a sane event model.
>
> I'd be curious to see how you would propose an asynchronous API without events and without re-inventing events through some specification-specific dialect.
>
> The phrase "Web Application" appears nine times in our charter, so surely this is not being seen as some new requirement. It's been this way since the start.
>
>
>
>
>