Re: What happened to the CryptoOperation interface?

You mean http://www.w3.org/2013/08/05-crypto-minutes.html for the minutes?

That's not very detailed and at least an email about these changes and 
the reasons would not be useless.

So for example I don't post outdated stuff here 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2013Sep/0003.html

To what active discussions are you refering to? There are still plenty 
of discussions about promises and I have made some comments for File and 
Streams related (partially) to WebCrypto, latest one is today: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/2013JulSep/0453.html

As mentioned I don't know how to do progress with promises, I thought 
"at least we don't have the issue with WebCrypto since we get 
process/finish methods", even if not perfect since you need to handle by 
yourself the delta data (and there is the story of then/done), but now 
it's gone, where did you see a solution for progress promises?

You have removed some examples too, so the API can look obscure to new 
readers, why don't you wait that things are final for promises and 
partial data, or do you know what you will do?

I don't see at all how you can now handle process, finish and add 
progress, the saga of promises is really becoming very annoying.

Regards

Aymeric


Le 08/09/2013 04:27, Ryan Sleevi a écrit :
>
> This was covered on the call. The minutes from two meetings ago (if I 
> recall correctly) should have them.
>
> The broader discussion of partial output interfaces (such as the File 
> API) and Streams (MSE, Streams API, ProgressPromise, etc) is happening 
> in WebApps and you can follow there to understand the broader 
> arguments - and concerns - of such interfaces.
>
> The minutes should include the discussion as well, as they were 
> discussed on the call. However, I haven't checked.
>
> On Sep 7, 2013 7:23 PM, "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com 
> <mailto:ietf@augustcellars.com>> wrote:
>
>     I was just going through the Editor’s draft dated 30 August 2013
>     and was shocked to find that there is no longer a definition of
>     the CryptoOperation interface in the document.   Instead a
>     sequence of CryptoOperationData objects are passed into the root
>     call.
>
>     I do however note that the excising was not complete as it is
>     still included in the verify method description.
>
>     I completely missed the reasoning behind this.  When was this
>     discussed either on the mailing list or in a telechat so I can go
>     back and find the justification/reasoning behind it.
>
>     Jim
>

-- 
jCore
Email :  avitte@jcore.fr
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
iAnonym : http://www.ianonym.com
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
Web :    www.jcore.fr
Extract Widget Mobile : www.extractwidget.com
BlimpMe! : www.blimpme.com