W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > April 2010

[Bug 9530] Validity of meta "pragmas"

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:05:09 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1O2mAP-0005R9-2A@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9530





--- Comment #5 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  2010-04-16 14:05:11 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Validator.nu doesn't support the wiki registries, because during the entire
> existence of the registries, a shadow of doubt has hung over the registries. It
> hasn't been clear if it is worthwhile to implement support for a particular
> registry mechanism if the registry is going to be shot down or delegated to the
> IANA by the HTML WG in due course.
> 
> This bug report is part of the problem. Not it seems that the reasoning is
> circular, so perhaps I should just go ahead and implement support for the
> registries to break the cycle.

I agree that we should work on breaking that cycle.

I don't think anybody has proposed to move *all* registries to IANA. For
instance, it's not clear why they would care about meta/@name.

Optimally, the W3C would provide something comparable (or even tell us to
delegate to IANA).

For now, I'd be happy if we could make sure

- that the actual registration procedures are defined in the spec, not in a
Wiki,

- that the Wiki instances actually reference the proper spec,

- that checking the registry contents actually is implementable, or
alternatively, discuss whether use of unregistered values actually should be a
conformance problem.

-- 
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 14:05:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 April 2010 14:05:15 GMT