- From: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 22:55:32 +0000
- To: Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com>
- Cc: "public-webcrypto@w3.org" <public-webcrypto@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAL02cgQkwXiVp1jv7ZnKWT=K7efRHBLpJsAoKYeA1t2NehMpag@mail.gmail.com>
W.r.t. 2: "if (window.crypto.subtle) { ... }", right? On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Jim Schaad <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote: > This may be an issue of ignorance on my part, if it is please excuse me. > > > > I am currently writing some code and have found that one or more of the > algorithms that I need for it are not either on the currently supported or > planned supported list for the browser that I am using. The way that I > would normally solve this is by doing polyfill for the missing algorithms. > In looking at this I have run into a couple of issues that I am not sure > how to deal with. > > > > 1. Is it possible to create a script size class which has the > CryptoKey interface in the prototype chain? This is one of two issues that > I have (so far) discovered with the use of “instanceof CryptoKey” as a > discriminator in writing my library code. (The second is the fact that > interfaces which are remoted from a different environment will have this be > false.) I have not actually tried to write the correct polyfill for this > but have not yet found anything that would support it working either. My > first guess is that this might be very dependent on how the browser > implements interfaces. > > 2. If I want the polyfill to be conditional, then the normal > approach I have seen in the past is to do some type of test on the feature > and either define or not define the polyfill as appropriate. I am not > sure how this is going to work out with a Promises approach to everything. > Currently the way that I would think about this is to generate a key with > the algorithm in question. However given that the result the promise would > be pending unless the algorithm is not in the dictionary to be > normalized. I am also not sure when the promises would be scheduled > relative to the onload event – would they complete before the onload or > would they be potentially afterwords. My assumption is that the timing is > totally arbitrary. This means that the polyfill code may need to be called > and started prior to it finding out if the feature it is filling in for > actually exists in the base implementation. > > > > Help – Jim > > >
Received on Monday, 12 January 2015 22:56:00 UTC