- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 16:36:38 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Sam Ruby wrote: > 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. > ... (replying to a somewhat random mail in this thread...) I think it's very good thing to document <keygen>; this helps people who need it (*), and implementors. (*) And yes, people *do* need it. Last year my colleagues needed in a project where IE and Firefox compatibility was required; <keygen> solved the problem for Firefox; and for IE we used the ActiveX approach. As far as I recall back then we had to special case Win XP vs Vista; dunno whether it was an incompatible change or a useful new feature. Whether it's optional or required, and whether it's in HTML5 or in a stand-alone spec doesn't make a bug difference to me; what's essential is that the information is there, and the element is implemented consistently. And yes, working out a better approach that would work interoperably in future browsers would be a good thing as well; but it's something we won't get done this year (I assume). Of course if we come the conclusion that <keygen> can be defined somewhere else, we should also look at other candidates, be it microdata, @ping, whatever. BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 14:37:29 UTC