- From: James Hawkins <jhawkins@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:14:04 -0800
On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 1:08 PM, James Graham <jgraham at opera.com> wrote: > On Tue, 6 Dec 2011, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > >> Especially changing the way <head> is parsed is hairy. Every new element >> we introduce there will cause a <body> to be implied before it in down-level >> clients. That's very problematic. > > > Yes, I consider adding new elements to <head> to be very very bad for this > reason. Breaking DOM consistency between supporting and non-supporting > browsers can cause adding an intent to cause unrelated breakage (e.g. by > changing document.body.firstChild). Originally we envisioned using a self-closing tag placed in head for the intent tag; however, we're now leaning towards not using self-closing and having the tag be placed in the body with fallback content, e.g., to install an extension to provide similar functionality. <intent action="webintents.org/share"> Click here to install our extension that implements sharing! </intent> What are your thoughts on this route? James
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2011 13:14:04 UTC