25326 2014-04-11 13:18:48 +0000 What is the rationale in having <keygen> as a void element? It won't be backward compatible, and in addition to this it could be used as a container for script-based legacy alternatives. 2014-04-11 14:48:34 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WHATWG HTML unspecified Other other RESOLVED WORKSFORME http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#elements-0 P3 normal Unsorted 1 contributor ian master.skywalker.88 mike contributor oldest_to_newest 103746 0 contributor 2014-04-11 13:18:48 +0000 Specification: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/ Multipage: http://www.whatwg.org/C#elements-0 Complete: http://www.whatwg.org/c#elements-0 Referrer: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/index.html Comment: What is the rationale in having <keygen> as a void element? It won't be backward compatible, and in addition to this it could be used as a container for script-based legacy alternatives. Posted from: 94.38.225.93 User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/34.0.1847.116 Safari/537.36 103747 1 mike 2014-04-11 13:22:25 +0000 keygen isn't a new element. It was implemented in browsers long before it was ever specified in the HTML spec. The spec is essentially just documenting it. 103756 2 master.skywalker.88 2014-04-11 14:48:34 +0000 I see. Never used elements outside official guides before, so I thought it was new in implementation, as well as in specification. Thank you.