- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 09:44:24 +1000
- To: Emily Stark <estark@google.com>
- Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I don't see anywhere that it says precisely that, but it does say http-equiv is an enumerated attribute: https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#attr-meta-http-equiv That said, I agree that we shouldn't be putting requirements onto HTML. I think you could do something like this: UAs should note that since "Expect-CT" is not an enumerated attribute of http-equiv on <meta> elements [HTML][HTML5], they are to be ignored. Cheers, > On 22 May 2018, at 3:07 am, Emily Stark <estark@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 12:27 AM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > "UAs MUST NOT heed http-equiv="Expect-CT" attribute settings on <meta> > elements [HTML] [HTML5] in received content." > > Here be dragons. > > 1. HTML and HTML5 appear in a "MUST NOT" statement, yet are listed as > informative references. > > 2. Even if they were normative references, we'd have to tell readers > which one takes precedence (surprise: the description of http-equiv is > indeed different in these two - see > <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18025>). > > 3. AFAIU, this spec *can't* make normative requirements on HTML > consumers. That's what the HTML spec is for. > > 4. Finally, the HTML spec already says that "Expect-CT" is > non-conforming and to be ignored. > > Where is that? I don't see any mention of Expect-CT in either HTML. > > > Given these points, I believe the simplest possible fix is to drop this > section. > > Best regards, Julian > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 21 May 2018 23:44:53 UTC