10920 2010-09-30 23:11:03 +0000 Remove reference to WHAT WG wiki from other metadata names section 2010-10-07 21:33:00 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified PC Windows NT RESOLVED WONTFIX http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/semantics.html#other-metadata-names P2 normal LC 10922 1 w3c ian ian julian.reschke mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 40334 0 w3c 2010-09-30 23:11:03 +0000 There are other metadata names, for example <!-- IE8, do not switch into IE7 mode --> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=100" /> <!-- Avoid annoying toolbars on images in Internet Explorer --> <meta http-equiv="imagetoolbar" content="no" /> I disagree there should be a registry for those names and values, and that it should be a wiki maintained by WHAT WG. Therefore I suggest to remove the text from this section and replace it with a definition of allowed characters for the name and content attributes. 40810 1 ian 2010-10-07 21:33:00 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: There are two issues here: 1. Whether there should be a registry mechanism for this extension point, 2. If so, what that registry mechanism should be. With respect to the first issue, a registry is needed in order to provide validation tools with the information required to flag typos and other mistakes in the use of this extension point. With respect to the second issue, I would be happy to reference whatever registration mechanism ends up being the one that implementations (validators in particular, in this case) consider canonical. This is essentially a case where "the market will decide"; the solution, if the current reference is not desirable, is to provide a competitive alternative.