about the idea for doing a Hardware Security API of some kind
please consider posting a follow-up there if you also want to give them some encouragement to try taking the idea to the WICG
(instead of them creating a completely new separate WG for it)
I confess I don’t really understand at all what kind of API they are imagining and how it would be different from the FIDO-related stuff
but WICG would be a good place to get the ideas discussed enough for somebody to hopefully take a shot are writing up an actual spec
or really I don’t at this point even understand what new problem it is that they are aiming to solve
it’s not clear to me that they themselves know
@sideshowbarker, that seems outside the WICG TBH
@marcoscaceres well I think by creating a whole new CG for it they’ve ensured that the odds of it actually resulting in anything useful are marginal
which is maybe not such a bad thing, given that it’s not clear at all what they actually want to do or whether it’s a good idea
For any brand-new ideas that any third parties want to actually get implemented in the Web runtime, in browser engines, it seems like the WICG is the place to take the ideas, since reps from all browser projects are already participating in the WICG and supporting it in principle
and by third-parties I mean anybody who’s not themselves part of browser project, because in that case they know enough to decide whether they should start a whole new CG, like the Web Bluetooth CG, or if it’s better to take it to the WICG or the WHATWG
Yeesh, dunno how I missed this whole thread the first time. I'll claim Google I/O-related focus issues. :)
@sideshowbarker I agree that this is probably far less than optimal - because a main problem with the HWSWG proposal was its disconnection from the browsers and other WGs doing things in this space. Your statement "For any brand-new ideas that any third parties want to actually get implemented in the Web runtime, in browser engines, it seems like the WICG is the place to take the ideas, since reps from all browser projects are already participating in the WICG and supporting it in principle" is spot-on.
The Bluetooth CG predates the WICG - otherwise, we would have worked on it in WICG.
The WICG isn't intended to replace every other CG for incubations - it's okay to create a different one, if there's a reason to - but given what the hwsec effort's weaknesses are (imo), yeah, I kinda feel they're playing to their weaknesses not their strengths.
@cwilso yeah and I guess I should not lose any sleep over yet another thing going off into a corner where people just spin their wheels and nothing ever comes of it
and I should be grateful it was successfully prevented from becoming yet another useless WG at least