On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 18:59:43 +0100, Paul Kinlan <paulkin...@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/
