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

Re: <keygen> element

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:35:01 +0300
Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1968062E-14C3-4EE2-B24F-6BAFF376D3A2@iki.fi>
To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
On Sep 8, 2009, at 23:29, Adrian Bateman wrote:

> On Monday, September 07, 2009 5:26 AM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>> It seems to me that the least damaging solution to avoiding requiring
>> things that a vendor has vetoed would be keeping <keygen>  
>> conforming and
>> in the HTML5 spec but making implementing it optional in the sense  
>> that
>> it must parse the same way in all UAs but whether it on layers  
>> above the
>> parser acts as HTMLKeygenElement or as HTMLUnknownElement is up to  
>> the
>> implementation.
> I'm not sure being in the spec or defined elsewhere affects this  
> since all
> unknown elements should parse in the same way in a conforming UA.

I meant the parsing part wouldn't be optional but implementing the  
semantics would be.

Henri Sivonen
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 06:35:44 UTC

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