- From: <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 18:46:53 +0200
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
> On 2 Sep 2015, at 14:56, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, henry.story@bblfish.net > <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote: >> >>> On 1 Sep 2015, at 19:56, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >>> >>> As far as I can tell, therefore, things here are working exactly as one >>> should expect. >> >> Indeed: they seem to be working as one would expect where one thinking that forces >> that don't like asymetric key cryptography to be widely deployed were trying to >> remove that capability as far as possible. The manner of doing this - by secret >> evidence, and pointers to closed non deployed standards - seems to be very much >> the way of doing of organisations that like to keep things secret and closed. > > This is borderline conspiratorial and is really not helpful. The first > message in the blink-dev thread [1] nicely summarizes the motivation. > If you distrust that and think that something more sinister is going > on, fine, but that's no way to have a fruitful discussion. > > Lots of things have been removed from specs and implementations > following roughly the same "process", which is that some implementor > realizes that they'd like to remove something, check if other > implementors are on board, and then ask to have the spec changed. > > [1] https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/pX5NbX0Xack/kmHsyMGJZAMJ I sent a more detailed e-mail to the TAG where I think the discussion has per force moved to https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2015Sep/0010.html > > Philip Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2015 16:47:26 UTC