[whatwg] register*Handler and Web Intents

Henri Sivonen hsivonen at iki.fi
Mon Aug 6 08:11:59 PDT 2012

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM, James Graham <jgraham at opera.com> wrote:
> I agree with Henri that it is
> extremely worrying to allow aesthetic concerns to trump backward
> compatibility here.

Letting aesthetic concerns trump backward compat is indeed troubling.
It's also troubling that this even needs to be debated, considering
that we're supposed to have a common understanding of the design
principles and the design principles pretty clearly uphold backward
compatibility over aesthetics.

> I would also advise strongly against using position in DOM to detect intents
> support; if you insist on adding a new void element I will strongly
> recommend that we add it to the parser asap to try and mitigate the above
> breakage, irrespective of whether our plans for the rest of the intent
> mechanism.

I think the compat story for new void elements is so bad that we
shouldn't add new void elements. (<source> gets away with being a void
element, because the damage is limited by the </video> or </audio> end
tag that comes soon enough after <source>.) I think we also shouldn't
add new elements that don't imply <body> when appearing in "in head".

It's great that browsers have converged on the parsing algorithm.
Let's not break what we've achieved to cater to aesthetics.

Henri Sivonen
hsivonen at iki.fi

More information about the whatwg mailing list