> On 2 Sep 2015, at 14:56, Philip J├Ągenstedt <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/

Reply via email to