- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 11:51:10 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Ian Hickson wrote: >> On Sep 1, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote: >>> One thing we could do is to add a note that this feature is known to >>> be bad and is intended to be deprecated as soon as alternative >>> proposals arise. That would give any UA a pretty good story for not >>> implementing the feature for now. > > Pretty much everything in the spec will be obsoleted when better solutions > arise. Why would we single out<keygen> here? Do we have reason to believe > that new solutions will arrive any time soon? What is the justification for making the element conforming to use? While it may be used enough to justify its implementation in browsers, and thus having a spec defining how it works, there doesn't appear to be any justification for why we should make it conforming for authors to use, especially given that relatively few sites actually make use of it anyway and it's not really a good solution for the problem it tries to solve. I think we should make it obsolete so that we don't encourage more authors to try and use it, and if the use case that it tries to address is really worth addressing, and there was significant interest in doing so, then it should be addressed by developing a new solution that addresses it better than keygen does. -- Lachlan Hunt - Opera Software http://lachy.id.au/ http://www.opera.com/
Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 09:51:53 UTC