I think bytes and blobs would be sufficient. +f...@google.com
On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Adam Barth <aba...@webkit.org> wrote: > 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
