5 ms·
> That is a good point, yes. Arguably it should have been left in as a void element with no behavior to avoid parsing issues of the sort you describe... That's
by domenicd 7y ago
> That is a good point, yes. Arguably it should have been left in as a void element with no behavior to avoid parsing issues of the sort you describe...
That's what we did, actually :). Parsing behavior was unchanged. Ctrl+F "keygen" in https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html.
- bzbarsky 7y agoI should have checked carefully, sorry!
- tannhaeuser 7y agoYou do realize that spontaneously editing the spec to drop, then re-introduce an element buried in a git commit is exactly the reason why WHATWG is an unreliable source for a definite HTML reference, don't you? Especially when it goes unnoticed even by experts such as GP. At the same time, you want to claim authoritative control over HTML, yet show no sign of respecting other established standards and standard bodies such as ISO/IEC, IETF (eg avk's URL "standard"), and W3C?
- domenicd 7y agoI'm not sure what you mean by drop and then re-introduce, buried in a Git commit. We made a single commit to remove keygen, after displaying a public deprecation-will-be-removed notice in the spec for some years. Dropping keygen was part of a highly-public pull request, which gathered discussion from all browser vendors, as well as interested community members. The pull request was only merged once all four browser vendors supported removal (2 had already removed by that point).