Re: <keygen> element

Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I'm assuming by "issue" you mean the objection raised to <keygen> by 
> Microsoft.
> 
> On Sat, 05 Sep 2009 14:22:25 +0200, Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> 
> wrote:
>> Renaming the element to follow HTML5's advice would address this issue.
> 
> This would not address the issue unless you mean to also remove the 
> element from HTML5. However it is pretty clear that browsers cannot 
> rename the element so I'm not sure why this is being suggested.
> 
>> Marking it as proprietary or obsolete (bug 7480) would address this 
>> issue.
> 
> 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.

>> Defining it in a separate document (bug 7499) would address this issue.
> 
> Agreed.

Cool: there is hope for consensus yet.

>> Coming up with something better that everyone would be willing to 
>> adopt (any ideas?) would address this issue.
> 
> 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 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.

>> What issue do you, Anne, have with putting this element in a separate 
>> document and clearly indicating that it is an optional feature that a 
>> number of browser vendors have implemented, and new user agents should 
>> consider should they happen to have similar requirements?
> 
> 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.

- Sam Ruby

Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 13:34:25 UTC