[API owner hat off since I work on this API] On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 2:26 PM Chromestatus < ad...@cr-status.appspotmail.com> wrote:
> Contact emails rby...@chromium.org, g...@chromium.org, ma...@chromium.org, > ashimaar...@google.com > > Explainer > https://github.com/w3c-fedid/digital-credentials/blob/main/explainer.md > > Specification https://w3c-fedid.github.io/digital-credentials > > Summary > > Websites can and do get credentials from mobile wallet apps through a > variety of mechanisms today (custom URL handlers, QR code scanning, etc.). > This Web Platform feature would allow sites to request identity information > from wallets via Android's IdentityCredential CredMan system. It is > extensible to support multiple credential formats (eg. ISO mDoc and W3C > verifiable credential) and allows multiple wallet apps to be used. > Mechanisms are being added to help reduce the risk of ecosystem-scale abuse > of real-world identity (see > https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1L68tmNXCQXucsCV8eS8CBd_F9FZ6TNwKNOaFkA8RfwI/edit). > > > > Blink component Blink>Identity>DigitalCredentials > <https://issues.chromium.org/issues?q=customfield1222907:%22Blink%3EIdentity%3EDigitalCredentials%22> > > TAG review Mozilla feedback from Martin (also on the TAG) suggests we > need to invest more in the threat model for the larger space and clarify > specific privacy mitigations before shipping or requesting TAG review. Sorry, I forgot to update this (now fixed). The FedID WG filed for TAG review <https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1119> a month ago now but no comment yet. Related, TAG has published Preventing Abuse of Digital Credentials <https://w3ctag.github.io/web-no-papers/> which is related (and covers many of the issues I listed <https://github.com/w3c/credential-considerations/blob/main/credentials-considerations.md> when we decided to start going down this path), but doesn't explicitly weigh in on whether and how the Digital Credentials API makes these problems better or worse. FWIW I personally think the time has come to ship out of OT and continue iterating on this as a launched API. Most of the important debate at this stage is about things we're going to have to keep iterating on like how the browser UI and presentation metadata should best promote privacy and transparency and control for the user (not the API shape). I anticipate much iterating on this in Chrome over the coming years as government identity systems are adopted more widely. For now the risks are relatively low because so few people have these credentials installed in a wallet that supports using the API. See also this discussion <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/Vj2tr_cAClk/m/ztVMpBYSAgAJ> from our last OT extension. > TAG review status Issues open > > Origin Trial Name Digital Credentials API > > Chromium Trial Name WebIdentityDigitalCredentials > > Origin Trial documentation link https://wicg.github.io/digital-credentials > > WebFeature UseCounter name kIdentityDigitalCredentials > > Risks > > > Interoperability and Compatibility > > There are multiple standards efforts involved here. We have been working > with WebKit and Mozilla in the WICG on defining this specific API. But the > greater interoperability risk will come from the data that is sent and > returned via this API. Details of that are still in discussions but mostly > driven outside the web browser community in the OpenID Foundation (eg. > OpenID4VP: > https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0.html) and > ISO (18013-7 "mdoc": https://www.iso.org/standard/82772.html) > > > *Gecko*: Negative ( > https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1003) We share most > of Mozilla's concerns and continue to work with them (and the broader > community) on mitigations. I believe we feel greater risk for the > established practice of custom schemes becoming prevalent than Mozilla does > (eg. due to Google being mandated by eIDAS regulation to accept EUDI > credentials). > > *WebKit*: In development ( > https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/332) WebKit > implementation progress: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=268516 > Apple has now announced <https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2025/232/> shipping in iOS 26 (September). Though it's worth noting that Apple's initial implementation is only partially interoperable with Chrome in that it supports only the ISO 18013-7 Annex C protocol while Chromium is largely protocol agnostic. > *Web developers*: No signals > > *Other signals*: This work in the W3C PING is relevant: > https://github.com/w3cping/credential-considerations/ > > Ergonomics > > There's a possibility that these credentials will be used alongside other > types of credentials in the future - such as optionally minting a passkey > when a digital credential is used to sign up for a site, or by allowing > sign-up with either a digital credential or a federated credential via > FedCM. As such we argued it was best to put this work in the context of the > Credential Management API, and hence the support is added in > 'navigator.identity.get() API . > > > Activation > > The primary activation concern is enabling existing deployments using > technology like OpenID4VP to be able to also support this API. As such we > have left the request protocol unspecified at this layer, to be specified > along with existing request protocols to maximize activation opportunity. > > > Security > > See > https://github.com/WICG/digital-credentials/blob/main/horizontal-reviews/security-privacy.md > and https://github.com/w3c-fedid/digital-credentials/issues/115 > > > WebView application risks > > Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that > it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications? > > This feature does not deprecate or change the behavior of existing APIs. > This feature adds a new feature via extending the existing > navigator.credentials.get() with a new type. > > > Debuggability > > None necessary - just new JS API. For testing we may want to add a > developer option to provide a fake wallet (as for the devtools fake > authenticator for WebAuthn), but this is not urgent. > > > Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, > Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)? No > > Android and Desktop Only > > > Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests > <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/docs/testing/web_platform_tests.md> > ? Yes > > > https://wpt.fyi/results/digital-credentials?label=master&label=experimental&aligned > > > DevTrial instructions https://digitalcredentials.dev/docs/requirements > > Flag name on about://flags web-identity-digital-credentials > > Finch feature name WebIdentityDigitalCredentials > > Rollout plan Will ship enabled for all users > > Requires code in //chrome? True > > Tracking bug https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40257092 > > Launch bug https://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4268575 > > Availability expectation - Feature is in Chromium browsers for the > foreseeable future. - Feature is available in Webkit (Safari) starting > version 26 > > Adoption expectation Feature is used by specific partner(s) to provide > functionality within 12 months of launch in Chrome. > > Adoption plan - Many partnership are being driven by the Android and the > Google Wallet teams. - Regulations in the EU may recommend incorporating > the API in Digital Wallets in the EU and hence there is a very chance that > website will start adopting this API. > > Non-OSS dependencies > > Does the feature depend on any code or APIs outside the Chromium open > source repository and its open-source dependencies to function? > This API passes the request from the verifier website to the underlying > operating system. Therefore on Android, it replies on the Credential > Manager API. This is widely deployed via GMSCore though. > > Sample links > https://digitalcredentials.dev/docs/requirements > > Estimated milestones > Shipping on desktop 141 > Origin trial desktop first 134 > Origin trial desktop last 140 > Origin trial extension 1 end milestone 140 > Origin trial extension 2 end milestone 139 > Origin trial extension 3 end milestone 136 > DevTrial on desktop 133 > Shipping on Android 141 > Origin trial Android first 128 > Origin trial Android last 140 > DevTrial on Android 119 > > Anticipated spec changes > > Open questions about a feature may be a source of future web compat or > interop issues. Please list open issues (e.g. links to known github issues > in the project for the feature specification) whose resolution may > introduce web compat/interop risk (e.g., changing to naming or structure of > the API in a non-backward-compatible way). > > > Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status > https://chromestatus.com/feature/5166035265650688?gate=5070577134469120 > > Links to previous Intent discussions Intent to Prototype: > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL9PXLx3sHWmdE-ikAEDay_S3ijf0%2BfxB_LbsuOx8YJx%2BZA7%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com > Intent to Experiment: > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-421uDmu2WNDBG5bYRSWAhfmahsHPVjDwN5NLkUdCkvw%40mail.gmail.com > Intent to Extend Experiment 1: > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6876938b.2b0a0220.377b9f.0109.GAE%40google.com > Intent to Extend Experiment 2: > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/67f3fe84.170a0220.25676e.143e.GAE%40google.com > Intent to Extend Experiment 3: > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6786814c.2b0a0220.1b83ac.051d.GAE%40google.com > > > This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status > <https://chromestatus.com>. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-8oB2_WO5RFF0gkG-sOcz_DsvuR6L0QJ_yREGg2bN2MQ%40mail.gmail.com.
