- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:35:01 +0300
- To: Adrian Bateman <adrianba@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
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 hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2009 06:35:44 UTC