Re: WebCrypto edits on key material (Option 2)

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:

>
> However, note that we can't simply have the spec sit around forever in an
> un-finished state while we wait for UA implementers to regain interest. We
> owe it to developers who read the spec to have the spec reflect the
> underlying reality of implementation. If there's features where we don't
> have interop, the path forward is to remove those features, not wait
> indefinitely.
>
> From your comments, it seems the other part of the spec that should be
> removed is WorkerCrypto. Is that correct?
>

Harry, I appreciate your kill it with fire approach of burning it all to
the ground. Note that's what I suggested in my reply as *an* option, but
not one I think is at all desirable. Note I also described how this could
be accomplished - it won't be by removing, but by recreating from what is
there, rather than removing from what isn't there.


> In terms of Safari, Safari has not removed their vendor prefix and so is
> not included in *any* interop discussions yet. Hopefully they'll catch up.
>

Harry, I'm surprised to hear you say this because this isn't really how
it's worked at all in the past for other WGs.


> We will not be able to ask for a new charter without going through this
> step of pruning non-interoperable features from the spec. We've been asking
> poitely for interest from browser vendors to help with interop and fixing
> this for the last few months, but given the lack of a response the way
> forward is simply to remove non-interopable features from the spec. We can
> always return to the spec if interest re-ignites. Again, a 'maintenance
> mode' will allow us to update the spec as implementations move.
>

Yes, and I spelled this out in the previous message.