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

Re: Proposal to make Content-Language pragma non-conforming altogether for ISSUE-88 (mark I)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:50:49 +0200
Message-ID: <4BD94869.5050802@gmx.de>
To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
On 29.04.2010 10:40, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:34:38 +0900, Julian Reschke
> <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On 29.04.2010 10:26, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>> ...
>>> To be clear: are you saying you object to the I18N WG's preferred
>>> resolution? If so, we will likely take this issue to a survey.
>>> ...
>> Yes. It's not the HTML spec's job to restrict the contents of what can
>> go into meta/@http-equiv; in particular to make it's use non-conforming.
> I still don't understand why you think that is so. Servers never
> implemented the feature (and it was intended for them). User agents
> ended up implementing the feature in limited fashion. What is the
> problem with writing this down?

We have heard from at least one CMS implementor (Roy) that it is used in 
practice. Just that *most* servers don't use it doesn't mean it's not 
used at all.

There's simply no good reason to break this feature (in calling it 

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 08:51:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:16:01 UTC