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

Re: Null change proposal for ISSUE-88 (mark II): proposed note

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 01:18:59 -0700
Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
Message-id: <929540C9-688F-47C8-9884-580CA12AFF50@apple.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>

On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:08 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:

> On 08.04.2010 22:37, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> ...
>> That does make sense. Would it be acceptable then to just make the  
>> pragma
>> non-conforming, thus removing any valid syntax at all?
>> ...
>
> Nope.
>
> The syntax of the value isn't controlled by HTML.
>
> It's ok to add warnings and recommendations about what better  
> alternatives are there.

What Ian suggests would not affect the syntax of the value at all.  
Only a particular set of http-equiv values are currently conforming.  
These include Content-Language, Content-Type, Default-Style and  
Refresh. What Ian is proposing is to remove Content-Language from the  
list. This would not affect the syntax of the Content-Language header,  
just as the lack of support for http-equiv="ETag" does not affect the  
syntax of the ETag header.

Also, making Content-Language nonconforming in the base spec would  
still leave it free to be defined as an extension, since http-equiv is  
an extension point (albeit one with a wiki-based registration  
mechanism).

Note: I'm not rendering an opinion on whether dropping Content- 
Language as conforming is a good idea or not. I'm jut trying to  
explain the actual effect of Ian's proposed change, as I understand it.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 08:19:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:07 GMT