Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on recent WhatWG blog post

2011-05-11 Thread Ian Hickson
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, Adam van den Hoven wrote: > > window.atob() and window.btoa() feel wrong, so does > window.crypto.getRandomUint8Array(length), not because they're not > useful but because there is no answer to 'what does converting binary > data to a base 64 string have to do with window?'

Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on recent WhatWG blog post

2011-02-08 Thread Aryeh Gregor
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Adam van den Hoven wrote: > But that is exactly what has happened, or perhaps some existing pollution is > simply being codified. atob() and btoa() were first implemented years ago, I guess by Netscape, and are supported in all major browsers except IE. So they we

Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on recent WhatWG blog post

2011-02-07 Thread Jonas Sicking
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:36 PM, Brett Zamir wrote: > On 2/8/2011 1:33 AM, Adam van den Hoven wrote: >> >> Hey guys, >> >> I was reading the blog today and something I read ( >> http://blog.whatwg.org/whatwg-extensibility) prompted me to signup to the >> list and get involved again. What follows is

Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on recent WhatWG blog post

2011-02-07 Thread Brett Zamir
On 2/8/2011 1:33 AM, Adam van den Hoven wrote: Hey guys, I was reading the blog today and something I read ( http://blog.whatwg.org/whatwg-extensibility) prompted me to signup to the list and get involved again. What follows is not exactly well thought out but I'm hoping that it will spark somet

Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on recent WhatWG blog post

2011-02-07 Thread Adam van den Hoven
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Aryeh Gregor > wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Adam van den Hoven > wrote: > > In reality all these belong to javascript, but modifying JS to include > them > > is not feasible. Also, what if I don't want to do crypto in my code, why > > should I have a

Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on recent WhatWG blog post

2011-02-07 Thread Diogo Resende
On Mon, 7 Feb 2011 15:03:55 -0500, Aryeh Gregor wrote: On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Adam van den Hoven wrote: ... Further, in CommonJS, the library has to export an object in order to make it available. If we could define things in such a way that the browser compiled the library indep

Re: [whatwg] Thoughts on recent WhatWG blog post

2011-02-07 Thread Aryeh Gregor
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Adam van den Hoven wrote: > In reality all these belong to javascript, but modifying JS to include them > is not feasible. Also, what if I don't want to do crypto in my code, why > should I have all that lying around (not that its a hardship but why pollute > the g

[whatwg] Thoughts on recent WhatWG blog post

2011-02-07 Thread Adam van den Hoven
Hey guys, I was reading the blog today and something I read ( http://blog.whatwg.org/whatwg-extensibility) prompted me to signup to the list and get involved again. What follows is not exactly well thought out but I'm hoping that it will spark something. window.atob() and window.btoa() feel wrong