This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 28501 - X-UA-Compatible check needs to allow additional text
Summary: X-UA-Compatible check needs to allow additional text
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: HTML Checker
Classification: Unclassified
Component: General (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: PC Windows NT
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael[tm] Smith
QA Contact: qa-dev tracking
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2015-04-16 23:24 UTC by Bob Peyser
Modified: 2015-08-23 07:07 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description Bob Peyser 2015-04-16 23:24:34 UTC 
Line 10, Column 68: A meta element with an http-equiv attribute whose value is X-UA-Compatible must have a content attribute with the value IE=edge.


It does ... with the ",Chrome=1" suffix
    <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=Edge,Chrome=1" />
Comment 1 Michael[tm] Smith 2015-04-18 01:08:40 UTC 
Hi. Thanks for raising a bug to ask about this. The current check is restricted to "IE=Edge" by design. That's because the HTML spec says it must be "IE=Edge", with no other text allowed in the value

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/semantics.html#attr-meta-http-equiv-x-ua-compatible

Why do you want to add Chrome=1?

If you believe that "Chrome=1" should be allowed, the way to suggest it is by raising a bug against the HTML spec.
Comment 2 Michael[tm] Smith 2015-04-18 01:16:08 UTC 
OK, reading about the history of "Chrome=!" I see again now that it was something from a few years ago now that was targeted to Chrome Frame.

Chrome Frame is gone now, though. It was discontinued and completely retired more than a year ago. So there's no reason for existing content to be using "Chrome=!" any longer, and no reason for the spec to make it valid or for the validator to not flag it as an error.

So I'm gonna go ahead and close this. But feel free to still comments here if you want, or even to re-open it if you really think we need to support this (but if so, make sure to provide a rationale).