W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > August 2011

Re: [VE][html5] http="X-UA-COMPATIBLE" should be valid

From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 09:43:57 +0300
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org, jfrench@ixley.com
Message-ID: <1312440237.2234.5.camel@shuttle>
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 09:01 +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> > Is X-UA-Compatible meta tags used for any other thing than that
> > specific thing? AFAIK, X-UA-Compatible is only used for IE browsers:
> > Either to trigger a certain "compatibility mode" within IE's native
> > Trident engine. OR to trigger IE to start the ChromeFrame.
> 
> It is used to select one of the modes of IE. 

Or put the other way, it is used to enable deliberate non-compliance
with the spec when choosing a past version of the Trident engine. It
would be rather odd for the spec to allow deliberate non-conformance
with the spec since requiring conformance is what specs do. (In the case
of choosing between Edge an Chrome Frame, it's choosing between a
different set of incidental compliance failures.)

> The details are messy and not 
> relevant here, since from the perspective of HTML specifications, the issue 
> is realism versus attempt at regulate what may appear in meta tags.

Just to understand your position about realism and validation better:
Should <g:plusone></g:plusone> validate in your opinion? (It's realism
created by blatantly disregarding the extension points that the HTML
spec does offer.)

> *) Other tricks include adding the meta tag via client-side scripting.

Does that actually work? (I doubt it but didn't test.)

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 06:44:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:48 GMT