- From: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:13:56 +0000
I know James mentioned [1] that we are leaning towards having the tag in the body which opens up the possibility of unsuported browsers showing the content of the element. This had some general consensus [2] [1] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-December/034084.html [2] http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2011-December/034087.html On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:44 PM, Adam Barth <w3c at adambarth.com> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan at google.com> wrote: >> There isn't always a href, if left out the value action should be >> launched on the current page. >> >> We didn't want to add additional attributes to the meta tag or link >> tag just for intents, this seems to open up the flood gates for future >> platform features to also extend the meta syntax, the meta element >> then just becomes a dumping ground. ?If the answer when defining a new >> declarative standardized platform feature is to just arbitrarily add >> new attributes to the meta data element we will get to a point where >> either ?we have attributes that are used in multiple contexts or use >> of basic attribute name spacing such as "intent-". >> >> Looking at the spec[1] it appears there would still be a relatively >> large change to the html5 spec to accomodate these new attributes and >> conditional parsing guidelines. >> >> A new tag is simple, concise and encapsulates the features and >> requirements of the new platform feature and gives us scope to iterate >> for future versions without stepping on the toes of the other features >> that might use the meta tag. > > Does that mean you're not interested in declaring this information in > the <head> ? > > Adam > > >> [1] http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#the-meta-elemen >> >> P >> >> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk at opera.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 23:05:37 +0100, Greg Billock <gbillock at google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> The big ergonomic sticking point there is probably the |href| >>>> attribute, which we envision >>>> being able to do same-origin registration. Perhaps a similar <link >>>> rel="intent"> tag >>>> modification would be able to do that, though. Is that what you'd >>>> suggest? Do you think >>>> having two tags involved would be confusing? >>> >>> >>> If there's always an href attribute you could just go for <link> instead. I think you should go for one element and just add attributes as required. And if we want to put inside <head> that would be either <meta> or <link>. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Anne van Kesteren >>> http://annevankesteren.nl/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paul Kinlan >> Developer Advocate @ Google for Chrome and HTML5 >> G+: http://plus.ly/paul.kinlan >> t: +447730517944 >> tw: @Paul_Kinlan >> LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/paulkinlan >> Blog: http://paul.kinlan.me >> Skype: paul.kinlan -- Paul Kinlan Developer Advocate @ Google for Chrome and HTML5 G+: http://plus.ly/paul.kinlan t: +447730517944 tw: @Paul_Kinlan LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/paulkinlan Blog: http://paul.kinlan.me Skype: paul.kinlan
Received on Friday, 16 December 2011 14:13:56 UTC