[whatwg] Cryptographically strong random numbers

Kam Kasravi kamkasravi at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 16 13:28:51 PST 2011


hey along these lines, does anyone track strawman implementations in various 
vendor browser nightlies?
Something like http://kangax.github.com/es5-compat-table/ but for the various 
harmony proposals.

kam



________________________________
From: Brendan Eich <brendan at mozilla.com>
To: Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com>
Cc: es-discuss <es-discuss at mozilla.org>
Sent: Wed, February 16, 2011 12:00:37 PM
Subject: Re: [whatwg] Cryptographically strong random numbers

On Feb 16, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:

> This issue seems to be the only significant remaining controversy here, so more 
>words settling it more decisively would be welcome. Thanks.


Not to drag this out, but the "randomness quality" issue (or non-issue, now) is 
not the only remaining one. Allen raised the question of whether typed arrays 
should be used at all when Array might do. This was in reply to your suggestion 
that the "sooner not later" simple and usable API depend on the forthcoming 
binary_data strawman.

I'm not sure what the browser vendors who don't yet support typed arrays think. 
Purely out of expediency and "I'm all right, Jack" Firefox boosting, typed 
arrays are fine and have some advantages over plain old Array, as Adam has laid 
out.

But ideally, we should hash this out with Microsoft people weighing in here on 
es-discuss (I'm told they're not allowed to participate on whatwg lists).

I miss the Opera presence on TC39 but I know a few still read and post. Would be 
great to hear from them soon too.

/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
es-discuss at mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20110216/e24b9146/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the es-discuss mailing list