In HTML, <META HTTP-EQUIV="Blah" is supposed to be equivalent to an HTTP header "Blah:", yes ? What is the position on creating new HTTP-EQUIV types (and presumeably equivalent HTTP headers) ? In the Dublin Core metadata work a form <registry>.<name>[.<type>] seems to be accepted, e.g. <META NAME="DC.Author" CONTENT="Joe Fish"> and perhaps <META HTTP-EQUIV="DC.Author.email" CONTENT="jfish@pisces.org"> and the equivalent DC.Author.email: jfish@pisces.org as an HTTP header which might imply that the "DC" portion should be reserved for the DC crowd, and registry-less names be reserved for the HTTP group. What I don't want to see, obviously, is people generating headers like Expires: 4/5/99 Location: Bournemouth Andrew Daviel TRIUMF & Vancouver WebpagesReceived on Wednesday, 19 March 1997 13:19:31 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:01 UTC