[Bug 9530] Validity of meta "pragmas"

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9530


Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID




--- Comment #1 from Ian 'Hixie' Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>  2010-04-16 00:20:41 ---
Please file one bug per issue.

> #1: Validity depends on the current content of the Wiki registry. I'd like to
> see proof that conformance checkers are actually going to implement this.

I do not have such proof at this time.


> #2: There is no registration procedure. If anybody can add, can anybody remove
> as well?

Sure. I would expect a community to form around this wiki page (and the others)
to maintain the integrity of the registry, removing registrations that aren't
used, add others that people have forgotten to add, etc. I'd be happy to set up
a mailing list if anyone wanted one to form such a community around.


> #3: The whole concept is in conflict with HTML4, which delegated the contents
> of http-equiv directly to the related IETF specs

Indeed. That didn't work.


> #4: The registry procedure on the referenced Wiki page is out-of-sync with the
> spec text, it claims "...Such extensions are limited to previously-registered
> HTTP headers defined in an RFC, ..."

Please feel free to edit it. It's a wiki. :-)


> #5: The specification link on the registry page refers to a different document
> outside the W3C spec, so not the HTML5 spec.

The WHATWG and W3C work together on HTML. You will have to get over your
problem with this if you are to work constructively with the HTML working
group.


> #6: It's not clear at all that requiring an entry in the permanent registry is
> required.

If you think it would be better to allow registrations from the temporary
registry I'm happy to change the spec. In general the idea is to strongly
discourage the use of http-equiv at all, so I don't really see a problem with
requiring that only established headers be used here.


Since multiple issues were conflated into one bug, I'm resolving this as
INVALID. This is not a formal editor's response; please split any specific
issues into separate bugs so that they can be dealt with according to the
working group process.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 00:20:44 UTC