W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2018

Re: draft-ietf-httpbis-expect-ct-04, "2.3.2. HTTP-Equiv <meta> Element Attribute"

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2018 09:44:24 +1000
Cc: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, httpbis <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7DF667C3-C1FE-4236-8D44-CE383321971C@mnot.net>
To: Emily Stark <estark@google.com>
I don't see anywhere that it says precisely that, but it does say http-equiv is an enumerated attribute:

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.


> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:43:59 UTC