Is the "Key" interface name too generic?

• From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
• Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 21:43:07 -0400
• To: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <53586C2B.8060109@mit.edu>

Mail, not bug, because this seems like something that needs discussion, 
not just addressing.

It keeps seeming to me that "Key" is a very generic name and that 
"CryptoKey" or some such would be less ambiguous and less likely to 
cause confusion with other keys in the platform (in ES6, in indexeddb, 
etc).  I'm sure this has been discussed to death in the past; is there a 
summary of the arguments for the current interface name somewhere?

Thanks,
Boris

Received on Thursday, 24 April 2014 01:43:44 UTC