W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

Re: <keygen> element

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:06:59 +0200
To: "Sam Ruby" <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Cc: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.uzsetxtq64w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook.local>
On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:33:25 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>  
wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Even obsolete elements still need to be supported by browsers so this  
>> is not a solution to the issue for Microsoft.
>
> OK, but proprietary would.  And coming up with a better term than  
> proprietary would be even better.

HTML5 does not have a concept of proprietary elements. Also, it does not  
make sense for a standard to define proprietary features, because by  
virtue of being in that standard, they are not.


>> I don't see how this would address the issue unless we somehow also  
>> convince all the sites that use <keygen> to no longer use it and  
>> convince the browsers that implement <keygen> to remove support for it.
>
> That's exactly the idea.  Maciej doesn't seem to be willing to rule that  
> out as a possibility:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2009Sep/0283.html

I have not seen any multi-vendor effort towards replacing <keygen> so far.  
Let alone getting it implemented and used by sites. I suppose it could  
happen, but certainly not within the timeframe you seem to care about.


>>> I don't believe that we will find consensus on retaining keygen as  
>>> currently specified in the HTML5 draft.
>>  I'm still hopeful and am not convinced this needs to be addressed  
>> before Last Call.
>
> I firmly believe that we will not find consensus on retaining keygen as  
> currently specified in the HTML5 draft, and firmly believe that this  
> needs to be addressed before Last Call.

I guess we disagree there then.


>> I don't necessarily have an issue with putting this into a separate  
>> document. I'm not sure about all the other clauses you attach to that  
>> though.
>
> I don't believe that there is consensus that keygen as currently  
> described can be a required feature.

If that is the issue why isn't the solution to make it optional in HTML5?  
Not that I agree that that would be good, but I don't see how separating  
it out solves anything if the actual problem is something else.


-- 
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 14:07:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:16:48 GMT