Re: WebCrypto edits on key material (Option 2)

On Jan 18, 2016 5:24 PM, "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@w3.org> wrote:
>
> It's not my goals, it's the W3C charter that we all explicitly agreed to.
>
> The obvious way forward is to open, for each interop problem you mention
and any others that are discovered, a bug.

These aren't spec bugs, Harry. They are implementation bugs.

If you feel otherwise, feel free to open issues. But absent that, it is
neither reasonable nor rational to argue that I should trawl through other
UAs bug lists (nor can I), looking for their bugs of non-complaince and
suggesting them as spec bugs.

I do hope you take a critical look at what you're asking, because I am at a
loss, having exhausted every means I have to explain to you how
unreasonable and inconsistent your suggestions are.

>  If they can't be tackled, then they features have to be removed.
Hopefully that will motivate UA vendors to fix issues.

And you still hold on to hope despite repeated attempts to engage other UAs
on core features. This is so disconnected from reality that I can no longer
reply effectively.

> So, you seem to be stating that you want the Working Group to close with
no further progress being made. I hope that is not the case.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, because that is exactly the feedback
we are seeing from other UAs. Arguing process and hoping for something
different than the past few months is naive, at best.

> I also doubt you are arguing that a spec that is effectively unmaintained
and that doesn't reflect existing implementations is the best for
developers.

Harry, again you've tried to pose this as an issue of the spec being
unmaintained. I hope you realize how frustrating that is, given that the
implementations and WG are unmaintained. You continue to push arbitrary,
technically unsound positions simply for process, rather than accept that
what matters more is figuring out if the spec even matters to UAs, and if
it does, to have a clearer direction from those UAs. If you mean it is
unmaintained because I am unwilling to implement your preferred solution
without feedback and commitments from other UAs, then yes, it's happily
unmaintained and will continue to do so, as to "maintain" the spec is to do
a further disservice to users and developers alike.

> lets UA vendors keep working on resolving bugs,

Again, UA vendors aren't working on resolving bugs.

Unless and until you solve this issue, everything else is lipservice.

>  What do you think?

I think your proposed fork illustrates exactly how bad the idea is for
holding "process" on a higher pedestal than progress.

But what does it matter, if no other UAs contribute?