- 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>
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 UTC