- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 04:55:59 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>, public-html@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli, Sun, 4 Apr 2010 04:37:55 +0200: > Ian Hickson, Sat, 3 Apr 2010 22:38:12 +0000 (UTC): >> On Sat, 3 Apr 2010, Julian Reschke wrote: >>> On 04.04.2010 00:34, Anne van Kesteren wrote: >>>> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 02:00:32 -0700, Julian Reschke wrote: >>>>> The attribute is an HTML attribute, but it's value space is defined by >>>>> the HTTP header registry. [...] >> http-equiv isn't anything to do with HTTP in practice. HTML5 just makes >> that clear. Ideally we'd drop the whole attribute, but unfortunately there >> are some pragmas that are needed for backwards-compatibility. I agree that >> some people will object (indeed, you have already objected). What matters >> isn't whether anyone agrees, what matters is that we make the right >> technical decisions that are compatible with reality. > > I am arguing that to continue to allow white-space as well as continue > to allow a comma separated list is more compatible with reality, than > forbidding one or both. Bug 9264. Your reaction to Bug 9264 was that I > should file bugs against user agents! (To "save" the spec.) Why should > I file bugs against vendors if your spec matches user agent reality? I have reopened bug 9264, under a new title, "There should be a link/border between [the] META content-language algorithm and HTTP content-language headers" because Mozilla browsers (which were the background for bug 9264) actually behave according to the HTML5 draft. http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9264#c7 -- leif halvard silli
Received on Monday, 5 April 2010 02:56:36 UTC