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

Re: <keygen> element

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 15:26:28 +0300
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <89270694-8845-485C-B6DF-7C6CD41F19A0@iki.fi>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
On Sep 6, 2009, at 06:07, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

>> Putting part of HTML in a different spec than the rest of HTML  
>> would be
>> a political decision, not a technical decision. I object to making  
>> spec
>> design decisions on political grounds.
>
> The relevant technical questions are:
>
> (1) Is use of <keygen> conforming?

FWIW, I was thinking that if <keygen> got spun into a separate delta  
spec on top of HTML5, I'd offer HTML5+<keygen> validation without even  
offering a plain HTML5 option on Validatorn.nu.

> (2) Is implementation of the behavior of <keygen> mandatory,  
> optional or forbidden?
>
> You are right that beyond these two questions, the spec factoring  
> issue is political; specifically, it is independent of the answer to  
> the above two technical questions.


It seems to me that the least damaging solution to avoiding requiring  
things that a vendor has vetoed would be keeping <keygen> conforming  
and in the HTML5 spec but making implementing it optional in the sense  
that it must parse the same way in all UAs but whether it on layers  
above the parser acts as HTMLKeygenElement or as HTMLUnknownElement is  
up to the implementation.

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Monday, 7 September 2009 12:27:12 GMT

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