Bytes and (likely) blobs are types we're planning to do in DOMCrypt. Hashing strings is slightly more delicate because you need to pick an encoding. Do you have a sense, if we did bytes and blobs, would that be enough, or are strings really important also?
Thanks, Adam On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Michael Nordman <micha...@google.com> wrote: > Yes, hashing blobs. Here's the last line of the relevant meeting notes... > "In the end, we all agreed that the main thing with the highest utility > would be a native hashing implementation that could accept strings, bytes, > or BLOBs." > > On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Michael Nordman <micha...@google.com> >> wrote: >> >> For example, the CryptoHash >> >> interface can be implemented independently of the rest of the API and >> >> provides value by itself. >> > >> > Moving forward on that part first sounds reasonable. I've been asked >> > about >> > that specifically by some app developers that really aren't interested >> > in >> > the other parts of the larger proposal. >> >> Are they specifically interested in hashing blobs? David and I have >> been discussing what sort of types these functions should handle. >> >> Adam >> >> >> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Sam Weinig <wei...@apple.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> I think we should let the spec mature a bit before diving in. >> >> >> >> -Sam >> >> >> >> On Jul 26, 2011, at 10:53 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi webkit-dev, >> >> > >> >> > As some of you are probably aware, Mozilla is experimenting with >> >> > exposing some basic cryptographic primitives to web applications: >> >> > >> >> > https://wiki.mozilla.org/Privacy/Features/DOMCryptAPISpec/Latest >> >> > >> >> > I wanted to get a sense from the WebKit community about how >> >> > interested >> >> > we are in implementing this feature. My sense is that this API is >> >> > fairly early in it's lifecycle, so one perspective is that we should >> >> > wait for Mozilla to experiment for a bit longer and revisit this >> >> > question once the design is further along (e.g., submitted to the W3C >> >> > standards process). >> >> > >> >> > Another perspective is that there are some simple parts of the API >> >> > that we should implement now, and we can grow into the more involved >> >> > parts of the API as they mature. For example, the CryptoHash >> >> > interface can be implemented independently of the rest of the API and >> >> > provides value by itself. >> >> > >> >> > Thoughts? >> >> > >> >> > Adam >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > webkit-dev mailing list >> >> > webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> >> > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> webkit-dev mailing list >> >> webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org >> >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ webkit-dev mailing list webkit-dev@lists.webkit.org http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
