- From: Sean Owen <srowen@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 10:53:53 -0500
- To: "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@miscoranda.com>
- Cc: public-bpwg-comments@w3.org
Thanks, all good points. The good news is we should shortly have a new draft out that addresses each of these. I had changed "tag" to "element" throughout, yes. The <meta> example has actually been removed since the test has been reworded, so it's moot, but I agree with your comment. Finally the new draft is clearer that the document must validate as XHTML Basic 1.1. I think you will be pleased with the forthcoming public draft over this early draft and we look forward to more feedback. Thanks, Sean On 11/10/06, Sean B. Palmer <sean@miscoranda.com> wrote: > > If a tag of the form <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="(URI)"/> is present > in the head tag, where "URI" matches the document's URI > - http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-mobileOK-20060712/#id4485726 > > * Please change "tag" to "element" throughout; a meta element cannot > appear in a head tag, but it can appear in a head element. > * Change the quoted instance of "URI" to "(URI)" to indicate that the > parens are not [sic] in the attribute value. > * Make it clear what the scope of this is: for example, is HTML 4.01 > valid? It would not appear so from the "/>" in the example, which > needs a space in front of it to be XHTML 1.0 Appendix C compliant. > And, indeed, what about XHTML 1.0 vs. 1.1 vs. Basic? > > Cf. http://chatlogs.planetrdf.com/swig/2006-11-10.html#T14-56-17 > > Thanks, > > -- > Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/ > >
Received on Friday, 10 November 2006 15:54:14 UTC