- From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 09:25:12 +0100
- To: "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
On Wed, 07 Jan 2015 08:55:02 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2015-01-07 08:52, Simon Pieters wrote: >> ... >>> I hear (a) these pages have been broken in IE for a long time, and (b) >>> only 23 (?) pages in your DB are found. >> >> Right. >> >>> So why not just leave them broken? >> >> It's a worse user experience and it's a shorter path to interop to >> change IE. >> ... > > User experience for invalid content is one aspect; sane parsing rules > are another one. Not requiring the parameter name will make it harder to > introduce new parameters in the future. If you want a new parameter *in place of* URL=, you're better off using a different http-equiv value. If you want a new parameter in addition to URL=, that would still be possible if URL= is first and it uses quotes. That said, I doubt new parameters will be introduced here, and the parsing is already not sane. -- Simon Pieters Opera Software
Received on Wednesday, 7 January 2015 08:24:32 UTC