- From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 23:58:14 +0000
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: > If even optional isn't good enough, then I'm confused as to what > action you're proposing. > > I do think that it's important that pages that do want to use <keygen> > in browsers that *do* support it, can still continue to do so. So that > they can use <keygen> in those browsers while using other methods in > IE. For this to work it still requires that all browsers parse > <keygen> the same. > > / Jonas Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is that optional is good enough but not my preference. My preference would be that <keygen> be specified in a separate document. I agree that browsers that choose to support <keygen> should work the same way. I think that introducing optional features into the main HTML5 spec isn't ideal but I don't have strong feelings against this. Cheers, Adrian.
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 00:01:00 UTC