Change from Registry to Supported Protocols #401

timcappalli · 2025-12-01T13:36:43Z

This PR makes the following changes:

Removes all references to a registry
Adds a new Supported Protocols section, with a table for details about each protocol, and enums containing the protocol identifiers for presentation and issuance
Updates intro text to match new pattern
Updates userAgentAllowsProtocol() method to use enum
Updates the GetRequest dictionary to use enum
Updates all references to registry to the new section

Closes #396
Closes #213
Closes #211
Closes #345

The following tasks have been completed:

Modified Web platform tests: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/56627/changes

Implementation commitment:

WebKit
Chromium (link to issue)
Gecko (link to issue)

Documentation and checks

Preview | Diff

RByers · 2025-12-01T15:29:57Z

Thank you Tim, this is looking like a great start to me. I've filed a Chromium issue to track our impl work and referenced it in your PR description.

timcappalli · 2025-12-02T00:20:04Z

PR made to Specref to add these references: tobie/specref#898

marcoscaceres

Like where this is going ... some initial feedback.

index.html

marcoscaceres · 2025-12-02T03:07:46Z

index.html

+    // MARK: Supported Protocols
+    -->
+    <h2 id="supported-protocols">
+      Supported protocols


I think we should avoid the word "Supported" as passive voice begs the question "supported by who?". Also, it's not clear what "supported by this specification" means.

This should really be about, "protocols that are known to be allowed by user agents" as verified by userAgentAllowsProtocol() for instance.

We could even have a column(s) for user agent or engine (WebKit | Gecko | Chromium).

The text says: "supported by this specification."

Perhaps...?

Suggested change

Supported protocols

Protocols

Would "recognized" work?

"Recognized" works for me, but yes also to Ted just "Protocols". The specification defines an API surface including possible values for this string, I don't think it's really any different than say the "CredentialMediationRequirement" enum, except for the detail of how exactly unrecognized values are handled.

index.html

marcoscaceres · 2025-12-02T03:14:54Z

index.html

      </dl>
    </section>
-    <h2 id="protocol-registry">
-      Registry of protocols


I agree we should delete this, but I'm wondering if any of this is salvageable for how new protocols are added to the spec. Should we have a non-normative note about "file a bug if you think your protocol belongs here?" or something?

is it really different than any other spec feature though? We don't say in the spec "If you want to add a new feature, create an issue".

I think it's pretty unlikely that we're going to see people wanting to add more protocols, I'd hate to complicate our spec with such text. I'd be OK pulling this out to a separate md file in the repo though Marcos if you want to keep it visible beyond an old spec checkpoint?

Copilot · 2025-12-02T03:15:46Z

@marcoscaceres I've opened a new pull request, #408, to work on those changes. Once the pull request is ready, I'll request review from you.

.cspell/misc.txt

marcoscaceres

Looking good... some suggestions to make this more future proof and better integration with the rest of the API.

index.html

marcoscaceres · 2026-01-08T23:31:47Z

index.html

+    </h2>
+    <p>
+      The following [=digital credential/exchange protocols=] are supported
+      by this specification.


My original comment stands, as I think "supported" will lead people to think that user agents support the listed protocols.

It be good to just go with "Protocols", as @TallTed suggests for the heading.

Instead of "supports", could we use either the word "permitted" or "recognized"?

Permitted implies the specification allows for these protocols to be used within the API's framework, but does not mandate their implementation in all user agents.

"The following [=digital credential/exchange protocols=] are permitted by this specification."

Recognized suggests the specification formally acknowledges these protocols as valid types for the API's parameters, without promising implementation in every user agents.

"The following [=digital credential/exchange protocols=] are recognized by this specification."

The "permitted" aspect seems more closely match out intent, specially with respect to the inclusion of the enum.

+1 to "permitted"

marcoscaceres · 2026-01-08T23:38:05Z

index.html

+    <p>
+      The following [=digital credential/exchange protocols=] are supported
+      by this specification.
+    </p>


Here we assure developers that at least one of the things listed will be supported, and how to check for support. We also reflect the reality of what is actually implemented and we mandate that at least one must be implemented.

Suggested change







A [=user agent=] MUST implement at least one of the [=digital credential/exchange protocol=] listed in the [=table of exchange protocols=]. However, it is OPTIONAL for a user agent to implement all the [=digital credential/exchange protocols=] listed in the [=table of exchange protocols=].



<aside class="note" title="Checking which exchange protocols a user agent allows">

Developers can check which [=digital credential/exchange protocols=]

a user agent allows by calling the `DigitalCredential.`{{DigitalCredential.userAgentAllowsProtocol()}} static method.

See [[[#checking-if-protocol-is-allowed]]] for a usage example.



</aside>

Works for me, with shorter lines that make life easier in many ways. I also added a missing s. I think that's all... but I encourage review with local DIFF of your choice, since GitHub fails to properly highlight this suggestion.

Suggested change







A [=user agent=] MUST implement at least one of the

[=digital credential/exchange protocols=] listed in the

[=table of exchange protocols=]. However, it is OPTIONAL for a user agent

to implement all the [=digital credential/exchange protocols=] listed in

the [=table of exchange protocols=].



<aside class="note" title="Checking which exchange protocols a user agent allows">

Developers can check which [=digital credential/exchange protocols=]

a user agent allows by calling the

`DigitalCredential.`{{DigitalCredential.userAgentAllowsProtocol()}} static

method. See [[[#checking-if-protocol-is-allowed]]] for a usage example.



</aside>

In my opinion, this should be added in a separate PR, as there was not alignment on what this text should say during the 2026-01-12 call.

index.html

marcoscaceres

Couple of additional link suggestions for OpenID...

index.html

marcoscaceres · 2026-01-09T03:38:40Z

The suggestions is what I've implemented in WebKit WebKit/WebKit#55603 ... and this very closely matches what is in WebKit already, which is great.

marcoscaceres · 2026-01-09T03:42:29Z

Coincidently, @mohamedamir and I recently updated the web platform tests to include the registered types 😄
web-platform-tests/wpt#56627

index.html

marcoscaceres · 2026-01-12T07:00:40Z

index.html

+        Enumerations as DOMString types
+      </h2>
+      <p>
+        Enumeration types are not referenced by other parts of the Web IDL because that


We can add this to the appropriate algorithm as a note. Or better, if we do use the enums in the algorithms (even if not seen by JavaScript), then we don't need this text at all (i.e., we do a "IDL conversion" to an enum value, which is a perfectly fine thing to do).

Describing in the algorithm that the value is converted to the enum (with failures silently dropped without throwing) sounds right to me.

index.html

RByers

With a few tweaks this seems worth landing to me, and then we can further iterate on the details.

RByers · 2026-01-16T19:02:26Z

index.html

+    // MARK: Supported Protocols
+    -->
+    <h2 id="supported-protocols">
+      Supported protocols


"Recognized" works for me, but yes also to Ted just "Protocols". The specification defines an API surface including possible values for this string, I don't think it's really any different than say the "CredentialMediationRequirement" enum, except for the detail of how exactly unrecognized values are handled.

RByers · 2026-01-16T21:48:28Z

index.html

      </dl>
    </section>
-    <h2 id="protocol-registry">
-      Registry of protocols


I think it's pretty unlikely that we're going to see people wanting to add more protocols, I'd hate to complicate our spec with such text. I'd be OK pulling this out to a separate md file in the repo though Marcos if you want to keep it visible beyond an old spec checkpoint?

RByers · 2026-01-16T21:54:11Z

index.html

+        Enumerations as DOMString types
+      </h2>
+      <p>
+        Enumeration types are not referenced by other parts of the Web IDL because that


Describing in the algorithm that the value is converted to the enum (with failures silently dropped without throwing) sounds right to me.

initial changes for supported protocols

08ca900

timcappalli added 4 commits December 1, 2025 18:49

Merge branch 'main' into 396-supported-protocols

9f4fd0a

add to dictionary

b962211

move section up

3ffca6e

tweaks

ccd4db1

marcoscaceres reviewed Dec 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

Copilot AI mentioned this pull request Dec 2, 2025

[WIP] Add standards to specref in Supported Protocols PR #408

Closed

4 tasks

timcappalli added 2 commits December 2, 2025 14:32

refactor spec references

3ba6495

remove names after spec ref refactor

ebab51d

TallTed reviewed Dec 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

.cspell/misc.txt Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

timcappalli mentioned this pull request Dec 4, 2025

Remove registry #376

Closed

marcoscaceres mentioned this pull request Dec 8, 2025

Digital Credentials API w3ctag/design-reviews#1119

Closed

1 task

jyasskin mentioned this pull request Dec 18, 2025

Is a registry needed? #345

Open

timcappalli added 6 commits December 24, 2025 10:13

add protocols enum

0f5e596

Merge branch 'main' into 396-supported-protocols

1b67881

update userAgentAllowsProtocol method and update enum name

953aa0b

DOMString to Protocol

2e2da5c

tweak enum

fcb14f3

remove licence

40e14b4

timcappalli mentioned this pull request Jan 8, 2026

Update get procedure for when UA does not support a protocol #432

Open

timcappalli marked this pull request as ready for review January 8, 2026 16:27

timcappalli requested a review from a team as a code owner January 8, 2026 16:27

timcappalli requested a review from RByers January 8, 2026 16:27

marcoscaceres requested changes Jan 8, 2026

View reviewed changes

marcoscaceres reviewed Jan 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

marcoscaceres reviewed Jan 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

index.html Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

cleanup protocol table

511dc58

timcappalli commented Jan 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

index.html Show resolved Hide resolved

timcappalli added 6 commits January 9, 2026 11:32

use explicit presentation and issuance terms

b1d3317

add issuance enum with placeholder

3944cdc

add enum DOMString conformance section

8e5e9af

move enums to dictionary sections

3e83759

create back to DOMString

044225f

userAgentAllowsProtocol back to DOMString

2263037

marcoscaceres reviewed Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

mohamedamir reviewed Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

index.html Show resolved Hide resolved

mohamedamir reviewed Jan 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

index.html Show resolved Hide resolved

revert comma

a5edaae

RByers reviewed Jan 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

-    </p>
+    </p>
+    <p>
+       A [=user agent=] MUST implement at least one of the [=digital credential/exchange protocol=] listed in  the [=table of exchange protocols=]. However, it is OPTIONAL for a user agent to implement all the [=digital credential/exchange protocols=] listed in the [=table of exchange protocols=].
+    </p>
+    <aside class="note" title="Checking which exchange protocols a user agent allows">
+      <p>Developers can check which [=digital credential/exchange protocols=]
+      a user agent allows by calling the `DigitalCredential.`{{DigitalCredential.userAgentAllowsProtocol()}} static method.
+      See [[[#checking-if-protocol-is-allowed]]] for a usage example.
+      </p>
+    </aside>

Change from Registry to Supported Protocols #401

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Change from Registry to Supported Protocols #401

Conversation

timcappalli commented Dec 1, 2025 • edited by pr-preview bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RByers commented Dec 1, 2025

Uh oh!

timcappalli commented Dec 2, 2025

Uh oh!

marcoscaceres left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

TallTed Dec 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI commented Dec 2, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

marcoscaceres left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marcoscaceres Jan 8, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

marcoscaceres left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

marcoscaceres commented Jan 9, 2026

Uh oh!

marcoscaceres commented Jan 9, 2026

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

marcoscaceres Jan 12, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

RByers left a comment

timcappalli commented Dec 1, 2025 •

edited by pr-preview bot

Loading

TallTed Dec 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

marcoscaceres Jan 8, 2026 •

edited

Loading

marcoscaceres Jan 12, 2026 •

edited

Loading