- From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 19:12:53 +0200
- To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
Phillips, Addison, Wed, 19 May 2010 12:26:49 -0400: >> >> Pointer to where the editor said this? Or perhaps the editor can >> confirm? > > It was in his change proposal, IIRC. Logically, it cannot be found in the proposal to make Content-Language pragma 100% *in*valid - as then the permitted syntax of pragma and HTTP headers, will - of course - differ. Consequently, if you look at the proposed spec text, you'll see that this variant doesn't include any syntax checking of the pragma, as the pure presence of the pragma is wrong. The other option is the current version of the spec (for which he has written a counter proposal in its defense - he only has these two proposals). However, the current spec says exactly the opposite of what you say: the syntax it allows for the pragma differs from that which HTTP allows. My prop is clear on permitting same syntax in pragma as in HTTP. -- leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 19 May 2010 17:13:29 UTC