It is equally interesting that W3C intends to start a new browser
authentication WG but have excluded digital signatures and key
provisioning from the charter in spite of the fact that about 10M
people today have to use proprietary browser-plugins in order
to get their work done. Maybe an answer
(Sent both to the WHAT WG list and to Joe Clark himself, because I
assume he doesn't subscribe to the list.)
On Oct 29, 2006, at 06:33, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
I thought Joe Clark's opinions and criticisms of the WHATWG and
HTML5 might be of interest to people here.
Karl Dubost wrote:
What will be interesting to see if they all perl, python, C, Ruby, etc.
libraries will follow this model once it is defined. It would be good I
guess for the new WG to gather implementation experience, not only in
desktop browsers but also in all applications consuming or
Anders Rundgren [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2006-10-29 14:38 +0100:
It is equally interesting that W3C intends to start a new browser
authentication WG but have excluded digital signatures and key
provisioning from the charter in spite of the fact that about 10M
people today have to use proprietary
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:04:46 +1000, J. King [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 12:16:44 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There was at least one major issue in WF2 that came out from actually
*implementing*.
What was the problem?
Default values for
