W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2009

RE: <keygen> element

From: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 23:58:14 +0000
To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "HTML WG" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <104E6B5B6535E849970CDFBB1C5216EB039A3D@TK5EX14MBXC138.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
On Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:07 PM, Jonas Sicking wrote:
> If even optional isn't good enough, then I'm confused as to what
> action you're proposing.
> I do think that it's important that pages that do want to use <keygen>
> in browsers that *do* support it, can still continue to do so. So that
> they can use <keygen> in those browsers while using other methods in
> IE. For this to work it still requires that all browsers parse
> <keygen> the same.
> / Jonas

Sorry if I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say is that optional is good enough but not my preference. My preference would be that <keygen> be specified in a separate document. I agree that browsers that choose to support <keygen> should work the same way. I think that introducing optional features into the main HTML5 spec isn't ideal but I don't have strong feelings against this.


Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 00:01:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:51 UTC