> On 2 Sep 2015, at 14:56, Philip Jägenstedt <phil...@opera.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:00 PM, henry.st...@bblfish.net > <henry.st...@bblfish.net> wrote: >> >>> On 1 Sep 2015, at 19:56, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: >>> >>> As far as I can tell, therefore, things here are working exactly as one >>> should expect. >> >> Indeed: they seem to be working as one would expect where one thinking that >> forces >> that don't like asymetric key cryptography to be widely deployed were trying >> to >> remove that capability as far as possible. The manner of doing this - by >> secret >> evidence, and pointers to closed non deployed standards - seems to be very >> much >> the way of doing of organisations that like to keep things secret and closed. > > This is borderline conspiratorial and is really not helpful. The first > message in the blink-dev thread [1] nicely summarizes the motivation. > If you distrust that and think that something more sinister is going > on, fine, but that's no way to have a fruitful discussion. > > Lots of things have been removed from specs and implementations > following roughly the same "process", which is that some implementor > realizes that they'd like to remove something, check if other > implementors are on board, and then ask to have the spec changed. > > [1] > https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/pX5NbX0Xack/kmHsyMGJZAMJ
I sent a more detailed e-mail to the TAG where I think the discussion has per force moved to https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2015Sep/0010.html > > Philip Social Web Architect http://bblfish.net/