- From: Richard Barnes <rbarnes@bbn.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:33:12 -0500
- To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- Cc: Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com>, "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
Do you mean that JS integers should be arbitrary precision, like python integers? On Mar 4, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> wrote: > Which is why it should be in the language, not the DOM. > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> wrote: >> Performance, need performance of native >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Richard Barnes [mailto:rbarnes@bbn.com] >> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 10:23 AM >> To: Anthony Nadalin >> Cc: 'public-webcrypto@w3.org' >> Subject: Re: BigNum API Proposal >> >> Could you clarify why this needs to be done as a web API instead of in JS? >> >> To answer the obvious question: The WebCrypto API needs to provide crypto primitives so that the keying material can remain hidden from the JS in most circumstances. Not clear to me that that applies to general BigNum stuff. >> >> >> On Mar 4, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Anthony Nadalin <tonynad@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >>> With all the discussion about blind signatures and support for BigNum, here is a draft API that Microsoft is submitting to the WG as a basis for the API. The BigNum API is common function in other JS libraries and a needed basic function for nonstandard algorithms. We would like to further discuss this at the up and coming F2F thus a heads up and a chance to read prior and looking forward to comments and discussions. >>> <CryptoAPI.j_> >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 4 March 2013 21:33:40 UTC