On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote: > On 2009/10/27 19:37, Ian Hickson wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Simon Pieters wrote: > > > This doesn't match what's specced for<meta > > > http-equiv=content-language content=foo,bar>. > > > > That's intentional, and is based on data about how people actually use > > that pragma. > > There's always a way to justify inconsistent choices (be it browser > implementations, 'data' about how people (who?) use some feature (at > what point in time?),...). But it would be way better to be consistent. Sure, but it's even better to be in line with how authors are actually using the feature. A few years back, when speccing the Content-Language pragma, the data I looked at indicated that most authors don't use the pragma in a way consistent with the meaning of the HTTP header. They instead use it as a default for setting the document language. There is more value, IMHO, in making pages work, than in being consistent with a rarely used feature from HTTP, especially given that that feature is of dubious benefit as specced anyway. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 17:05:41 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 17:05:41 GMT