W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg-ct@w3.org > November 2008

Re: [CTG] Draft 2008-11-07 / http-equiv

From: Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:40:02 -0800 (PST)
To: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
Message-ID: <679403.57532.qm@web45005.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>

> I meant to say that rather than us debating whether 
> WML is in, or out, as far as being considered Web 
> technology, how much would it take for us to be 
> inclusive of it anyway? If not much, then let's 
> just do it.

The current formulation in section 4.2 of the CTG draft 
is as follows:

	"In the following, proxies must check for the 
	presence of equivalent <meta http-equiv> elements 
	in HTML content, if the relevant HTTP header is 
	not present."

A suggested replacement is:

	"In the following, proxies MUST check the
	content for the presence and the value of 
	equivalent <meta http-equiv> elements, if
	the relevant fields are not present in the
	HTTP header.

	The syntax of <meta http-equiv> elements,
	their location in documents, and additional
	constraints on handling them are specified
	in the relevant standards (in particular
	HTML 4.0.1 section 7.4.4, WML section 6.1 
	and 11.3.2, XHTML basic section 3.0, XHTML 
	1.1 section 3.0, XHTML mobile profile section


Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 14:41:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:06:30 UTC