[Bug 25618] Extensibility: Offer spec-blessed ways to extend the algorithms and curves, rather than monkey-patching the spec

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25618

--- Comment #23 from Ryan Sleevi <sleevi@google.com> ---
(In reply to Mark Watson from comment #21)
> Re-opening as per conf call discussion.
>
> Combining (1) and (3) there is no possibility of 'monkey-patching' and
> therefore no need for extension points. Anne seems to agree with this.

Agreed

> 
> In future, we may decide we need additional specifications (e.g. for
> additional elliptic curves). According to (1), we will need to modify our
> base specification anyway, to include the references to these new curve
> specifications. So, I see no reason why we could not include the
> extensibility provisions then.

Agreed

> 
> As I result, I suggest we just revert the changes related to extensibility.

Agreed

(In reply to Harry Halpin from comment #22)
> Maybe this wasn't clear, but given the experience W3C had with XML-DSIG as
> anytime we want to update the spec we have to go all the way through W3C
> process again. I know people have different tastes here, but c'est la vie. 
> 
> Thus, option 1) is not viable to W3C and will likely prevent us from going
> to CR. Also, at least one browser vendor (Microsoft) wants extension points.
> If you don't believe me, feel free to ask Wendy Seltzer or Tim Berners-Lee. 
> 

While I cannot speak for Microsoft, and do not attempt to position this as a
final Mozilla position, from discussing both internally and externally, there
is a strong belief that 1 is the ONLY viable option from the browser side.

If that's not something the W3C can fit for process reasons, then this spec may
be better maintained through activities that can support it, such as the
WHATWG.

> Folks who don't like extension points, given they likely have no impact on
> running code but only allow future code to run without monkey-patching,
> simply don't have to be bothered.

That's not a viewpoint we share. The complexity - in both text and in possible
implications for future efforts regarding "how" extensibility is handled -

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2014 12:54:40 UTC