[webkit-dev] DOMCrypt

[Adam Barth]

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 <michaeln at 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 <abarth at webkit.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Michael Nordman <michaeln at 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 <weinig at 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 at lists.webkit.org
>> >> > http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> webkit-dev mailing list
>> >> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
>> >> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
>> >
>> >
>
>