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

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

From: Leif H Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:24:10 +0300
To: hsivonen@iki.fi
Cc: jkorpela@cs.tut.fi, www-validator@w3.org, jfrench@ixley.com
Message-ID: <2628836948.996931450@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Henri Sivonen 4/8/'11,  9:43:
> 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.

+1
 
>> 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.)

With regard to the uses that Microsoft IE makes of X-UA-COMPATIBLE, them I 
suppose that there aren't any relevant extension points...
--
Leif H Silli 
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 10:25:00 GMT

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