- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 22:05:20 -0400
- To: Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com>
- CC: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
On 7/15/14, 8:43 PM, Ryan Sleevi wrote:
> Because you endorsed it ;)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webcrypto/2014Mar/0156.html
>
> ("You'll probably want to do "object" and manual coercion to dictionary
> types)
>
> Rather than a litany of subtypes, they were folded all into JsonWebKey,
> since all dictionary fields are optional anyway, the type distinction
> didn't make sense. Perhaps your "object" comment was predicated upon
> that design approach, but the union and choice of object (versus
> dictionary) was a result of that thread.
Wait, wait.
That mail was about a union that had multiple different dictionary types
in it, no? In that situation you have to use "object" and convert to
the different dictionary types depending on whatever out-of-band
information you have. That was the context for my suggestion to use
"object".
But the actual spec as written folds all the dictionaries into one, as
you say. So then you can just use that dictionary type; you don't need
the "object" games.
-Boris
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 02:05:49 UTC