W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-international@w3.org > July to September 2008

Re: meta content-language

From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:29:07 +0900
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20080822112722.09d32a08@localhost>
To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
Cc: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>

At 08:46 08/08/22, Robert J Burns wrote:

>On Aug 22, 2008, at 2:20 AM, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, August 22, 2008 5:55 am, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> In any case, all of the http-equiv attributes are defined by HTTP.
>>>> That is its definition in HTML.
>>>
>>> It's not the definition in HTML5 as drafted.
>>
>> exactly, but I believe Roy's point is that Content-Language isn't  
>> part of
>> HTML, rather its part of the HTTP standard and defined there, and that
>> HTML5 should not be defining its own version.
>
>True, but the other contention (not mine) is that the http-equiv  
>pragmas are to be decoupled in HTML5 from their http definitions  
>(leaving just their names as a historical artifact). The biggest  
>problem I see with that is that we've seen no use cases or problem  
>statements to justify such a (potentially very confusing) decoupling.

And that (as Roy has cited) that there are existing (server)
implementations that depend on the coupling between HTTP headers
and "meta http-equiv" data.

So: No reason to change, all reasons for keeping it as is.

Regards,    Martin. 


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp     
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 08:00:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 19:17:18 GMT