- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:54:03 +0100
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 18:59:43 +0100, Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan at google.com> wrote: > Cons: > * ordering of data in the content element - if the ordering of data in > the content value is mandatory and the developer mixes up the > ordering, does the action then become "image/png" (which is still > techincally valid) and the data type become the uri string specified? > * we have other optional attributes, such as title, disposition and > icon so a scheme needs to be defined inside the content, if we define > a scheme it looks similar to the intent tag but harder to prepare > (from a normal developers perspective) > * some attributes can have spaces so we would need to define encoding > mechanisms inside the content attribute to handle quotes, and double > quotes. > * we can't provide a visual fallback if intents aren't supported - see > discussion about self closing tag in body. > * harder to validate (due to all of the above) We can just add additional attributes to <meta> you know. We have done the same for <link>. E.g. for <link rel=icon> you can specify a sizes attribute. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2011 09:54:03 UTC