Intent to Extend Experiment: Digital Credential API

[Chromestatus]

Contact emails

rby...@chromium.org, go...@chromium.org, ma...@chromium.org, ashim...@google.com

Explainer

https://github.com/w3c-fedid/digital-credentials/blob/main/explainer.md

Specification

https://w3c-fedid.github.io/digital-credentials

Summary

Websites can and do get credentials from mobile wallet apps through a variety of mechanisms today (custom URL handlers, QR code scanning, etc.). This Web Platform feature would allow sites to request identity information from wallets via Android's IdentityCredential CredMan system. It is extensible to support multiple credential formats (eg. ISO mDoc and W3C verifiable credential) and allows multiple wallet apps to be used. Mechanisms are being added to help reduce the risk of ecosystem-scale abuse of real-world identity (see https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1L68tmNXCQXucsCV8eS8CBd_F9FZ6TNwKNOaFkA8RfwI/edit).

Blink component

Blink>Identity>DigitalCredentials

TAG review

Mozilla feedback from Martin (also on the TAG) suggests we need to invest more in the threat model for the larger space and clarify specific privacy mitigations before shipping or requesting TAG review.

TAG review status

Pending

Origin Trial Name

Digital Credentials API

Chromium Trial Name

WebIdentityDigitalCredentials

Origin Trial documentation link

https://wicg.github.io/digital-credentials

WebFeature UseCounter name

kIdentityDigitalCredentials

Risks

Interoperability and Compatibility

There are multiple standards efforts involved here. We have been working with WebKit and Mozilla in the WICG on defining this specific API. But the greater interoperability risk will come from the data that is sent and returned via this API. Details of that are still in discussions but mostly driven outside the web browser community in the OpenID Foundation (eg. OpenID4VP: https://openid.net/specs/openid-4-verifiable-presentations-1_0.html) and ISO (18013-7 "mdoc": https://www.iso.org/standard/82772.html)

Gecko: Negative (https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/1003) We share most of Mozilla's concerns and continue to work with them (and the broader community) on mitigations. I believe we feel greater risk for the established practice of custom schemes becoming prevalent than Mozilla does (eg. due to Google being mandated by eIDAS regulation to accept EUDI credentials).

WebKit: In development (https://github.com/WebKit/standards-positions/issues/332) WebKit implementation progress: https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=268516

Web developers: No signals

Other signals: This work in the W3C PING is relevant: https://github.com/w3cping/credential-considerations/

Ergonomics

There's a possibility that these credentials will be used alongside other types of credentials in the future - such as optionally minting a passkey when a digital credential is used to sign up for a site, or by allowing sign-up with either a digital credential or a federated credential via FedCM. As such we argued it was best to put this work in the context of the Credential Management API, and hence the support is added in 'navigator.identity.get() API .

Activation

The primary activation concern is enabling existing deployments using technology like OpenID4VP to be able to also support this API. As such we have left the request protocol unspecified at this layer, to be specified along with existing request protocols to maximize activation opportunity.

Security

See https://github.com/WICG/digital-credentials/blob/main/horizontal-reviews/security-privacy.md and https://github.com/w3c-fedid/digital-credentials/issues/115

WebView application risks

Does this intent deprecate or change behavior of existing APIs, such that it has potentially high risk for Android WebView-based applications?

Goals for experimentation

Reason this experiment is being extended

We have made significant progress on the spec (specifically the privacy and security sections), and the First Public Working Draft has been published on the 1st of July 2025. We are currently waiting for the TAG review and hence would like to extend this OT for one more milestone. We are optimistic that by the end of this time we will have received a positive TAG review, which will unblock shipping the API.

Reason this experiment is being extended

- W3C team report on Digital Credentials formal objection is now published with, as expected, a recommendation to overrule the objection: https://www.w3.org/2024/10/team-report-fedid-wg-fo.html - We have made progress with updating the spec and updated the implementation to match the latest spec (changing the request and response format, and support multiple requests) and we would like to test such implementation. - Google Birthday Correct Flow implementation is also being updated to support both legacy and modern format. - We have delayed announcing the cross-device OT because of issue with 3rd party camera apps, we have reached out to other OEMs to fix it.

Reason this experiment is being extended

I'd like to request permission to extend an OT for this API. The experiment has been running for Android only so far, but in the meanwhile: 1- There has been progress on the spec https://wicg.github.io/digital-credentials/ and it is expected to graduate to the FedID WG soon. 2- We have added Desktop cross-device support. Therefore, we are requesting the extension.

Ongoing technical constraints

None

Debuggability

None necessary - just new JS API. For testing we may want to add a developer option to provide a fake wallet (as for the devtools fake authenticator for WebAuthn), but this is not urgent.

Will this feature be supported on all six Blink platforms (Windows, Mac, Linux, ChromeOS, Android, and Android WebView)?

No

Android and Desktop Only

Is this feature fully tested by web-platform-tests?

Yes

https://wpt.fyi/results/digital-credentials?label=master&label=experimental&aligned

DevTrial instructions

https://digitalcredentials.dev/docs/requirements

Flag name on about://flags

web-identity-digital-credentials

Finch feature name

WebIdentityDigitalCredentials

Requires code in //chrome?

True

Tracking bug

https://issues.chromium.org/issues/40257092

Launch bug

https://launch.corp.google.com/launch/4268575

Estimated milestones

Shipping on desktop	141
Origin trial desktop first	134
Origin trial desktop last	136
Origin trial extension 1 end milestone	140
Origin trial extension 2 end milestone	139
Origin trial extension 3 end milestone	136
DevTrial on desktop	133
Shipping on Android	141
Origin trial Android first	128
Origin trial Android last	133
DevTrial on Android	119

Link to entry on the Chrome Platform Status

https://chromestatus.com/feature/5166035265650688?gate=5169620323139584

Links to previous Intent discussions

Intent to Prototype: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAL9PXLx3sHWmdE-ikAEDay_S3ijf0%2BfxB_LbsuOx8YJx%2BZA7%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com
Intent to Experiment: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/CAFUtAY-421uDmu2WNDBG5bYRSWAhfmahsHPVjDwN5NLkUdCkvw%40mail.gmail.com
Intent to Extend Experiment 2: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/67f3fe84.170a0220.25676e.143e.GAE%40google.com
Intent to Extend Experiment 3: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6786814c.2b0a0220.1b83ac.051d.GAE%40google.com

This intent message was generated by Chrome Platform Status.

[Jeffrey Yasskin]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 10:44 AM Chromestatus <ad...@cr-status.appspotmail.com> wrote:

Contact emails

rby...@chromium.org, go...@chromium.org, ma...@chromium.org, ashim...@google.com

Explainer

https://github.com/w3c-fedid/digital-credentials/blob/main/explainer.md

Specification

https://w3c-fedid.github.io/digital-credentials

Summary

Websites can and do get credentials from mobile wallet apps through a variety of mechanisms today (custom URL handlers, QR code scanning, etc.). This Web Platform feature would allow sites to request identity information from wallets via Android's IdentityCredential CredMan system. It is extensible to support multiple credential formats (eg. ISO mDoc and W3C verifiable credential) and allows multiple wallet apps to be used. Mechanisms are being added to help reduce the risk of ecosystem-scale abuse of real-world identity (see https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1L68tmNXCQXucsCV8eS8CBd_F9FZ6TNwKNOaFkA8RfwI/edit).

Blink component

Blink>Identity>DigitalCredentials

TAG review

Mozilla feedback from Martin (also on the TAG) suggests we need to invest more in the threat model for the larger space and clarify specific privacy mitigations before shipping or requesting TAG review.

FWIW, Wendy Seltzer did send a TAG review for this, at https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1119.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/6876938b.2b0a0220.377b9f.0109.GAE%40google.com.

[Alex Russell]

Thanks for all of this. Any reason not to pivot this intent to a gapless I2S?

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[Mohamed Amir Yosef]

Thanks Alex!
Could you please clarify what you mean with "pivot this intent to a gapless I2S"? (sorry but I am a bit confused)

I am requesting the extension to cover up to and including Chrome 140, and we are optimistic that we will be able to send the I2S for 141.

Doesn't this qualify as a gapless I2S?

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+...@chromium.org.

[Rick Byers]

[API owner hat off since I'm personally working on this API]

Yeah Alex we had the same debate on the team. We feel ready to ship but we understand there's a lot of concern around this API and that the spec is far from finished in terms of convincingly mitigating the privacy risks of this powerful feature. We are completely ready to ship in M140 if API owners felt that was best, but also the TAG review was just filed by the WG and it seems reasonable to me to give at least a few weeks for debate and discussion on the TAG review before asking API owners to make a call on the risk / benefit tradeoff to shipping at this time. Adoption of this API is going to be slow mainly because adoption by users of these forms of digital credentials is slow, but at the same time there is real urgency around directing adoption here vs. competing approaches like the use of custom schemes.

So all that said, personally I think aiming for M141 is a good balance, but if we happen to get a good TAG review without a lot of debate in time for M140 then I'd be happy to launch early.

   Rick

[Alex Russell]

Sorry for the slow reply, and thanks for the background. LGTM to continue OT, and good hunting for an I2S whenever you feel ready.

Best,

Alex

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscribe@chromium.org.