This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 25625 - Provide a better explanation for the (informative) table in Section 18.1
Summary: Provide a better explanation for the (informative) table in Section 18.1
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Web Cryptography
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Web Cryptography API Document (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mark Watson
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
: 24827 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2014-05-09 00:33 UTC by Ryan Sleevi
Modified: 2014-09-26 23:37 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description Ryan Sleevi 2014-05-09 00:33:47 UTC
As raised during the W3C TAG review - https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/3#issuecomment-41521737

The table in 18.1 is largely presented without context. Provide a better explanation for the context of this table as it relates to the specification.
Comment 1 Mark Watson 2014-09-22 17:47:18 UTC
The existing text states that the table shows operations, but in fact it shows methods. This is one of the sources of confusion.

There is not a 1-1 mapping between methods and operations. For example, the deriveKey method makes use of the get length, derive bits and import key operations.
Comment 2 Mark Watson 2014-09-24 18:53:01 UTC
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-api/rev/d4704a7582c8
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webcrypto-api/rev/529c7559a84c

I think the specification would be improved if we were more explicit about the difference between the SubtleCrypto methods and the operations supported by algorithms.

My suggestion is that we write the operations names with square brackets, so, for example, we would refer to the "encrypt method" and to the "[encrypt] operation".

Comments ?
Comment 3 Mark Watson 2014-09-26 15:13:17 UTC
*** Bug 24827 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Mark Watson 2014-09-26 23:37:23 UTC
In the absence of comments, I propose we leave things as they are, with the additional explanation I have already provided.