Re: PROPOSAL: Close ISSUE-24 - Defining a Synchronous API

I, for one, would object to a stuck l synchronous API and therefore support
closing this issue.
On Jan 31, 2013 2:15 PM, "Ryan Sleevi" <sleevi@google.com> wrote:

> http://www.w3.org/2012/webcrypto/track/issues/24
>
> I would like to propose that we CLOSE ISSUE-24.
>
> There have been no proposals put forth since it was raised.
>
> Some members have suggested that synchronous methods be permitted on
> the main thread of execution. Implementers objected to this (as, no
> doubt, would the TAG), due to the significant performance concerns
> they introduce. These objections were re-iterated during the TPAC/Lyon
> F2F.
>
> Further, the transition to a Promises-style API may resolve many of
> the concerns regarding scriptability.
>
> As such, I propose that this issue be closed.
>
>