- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:22:43 +0300
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>, Bjartur Thorlacius <svartman95@gmail.com>, Mounir Lamouri <mounir@lamouri.fr>, whatwg@whatwg.org
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > Thus, I propose a parallel mechanism in the form of an empty > element that goes in the <head>: > > <intent > action="edit" intent action, e.g. open or edit, default "share" > type="image/png" MIME type filter, default omitted, required if scheme omitted > scheme="mailto" Scheme filter, default omitted, required if type omitted > href="" Handler URL, default "" (current page) > title="Foo" Handler user-visible name, required attribute > disposition="" HandlerDisposition values, default "overlay" > > This is a severe violation of the Degrade Gracefully design principle. Adopting your proposal would mean that pages that include the intent element in head would parse significantly differently in browsers that predate the HTML parsing algorithm or in browsers that implement it in its current form. I believe that having the intent element break the parser out of head in browsers that don't contain the parser differences you implicitly propose would cause a lot of grief to Web authors and would hinder the adoption of this feature. My concerns could be addressed in any of these three ways: 1) Rename <intent> to <link> 2) Rename <intent> to <meta> 3) Make <intent> have an end tag and make it placed in <body> rather than <head> I prefer solution #1. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 10:23:11 UTC