- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 17:20:46 +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: > ... > The key point isn't "somewhere else" but optional. If <keygen> were > defined separately but normatively referenced in a way that was still > mandatory, the document would still not reflect reality. > ... Agreed. > Nobody is suggesting that keygen should not be documented at all. > > The current draft indicates that keygen support is required. That is > the part that is controversial. > > By Last Call, we need to have consensus on this issue. > ... Agreed as well. And on many more. BR, Julian
Received on Saturday, 5 September 2009 15:21:37 UTC