- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 05:42:31 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068 --- Comment #56 from Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> 2010-08-24 05:42:30 --- (In reply to comment #44) > ... > I wasn't making a value judgement. Those are real-world examples (from > Facebook) of authors using <noscript> to solve problems that they have no other > way of solving. Claiming something is obsolete or deprecated without giving > authors better tools for solving their problems is waste of time. > ... Hey. Can we quote you on that in other threads? > ... > > <noscript><meta http-equiv="X-Frame-Options" content="deny"/></noscript> > > > > "X-Frame-Options" is an invalid "http-equiv" value in the current editor's > > draft: > > So? > ... (Advocatus Diaboli) Why does it matter when <noscript> gets deprecated when the whole construct was non-conforming (because of X-Frame-Options) anyway? -- 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 Tuesday, 24 August 2010 05:42:32 UTC