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 
"non-conforming").

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:08 GMT