- From: Eduardo Casais <casays@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 06:40:02 -0800 (PST)
- To: public-bpwg-ct@w3.org
> I meant to say that rather than us debating whether
> WML is in, or out, as far as being considered Web
> technology, how much would it take for us to be
> inclusive of it anyway? If not much, then let's
> just do it.
The current formulation in section 4.2 of the CTG draft
is as follows:
"In the following, proxies must check for the
presence of equivalent <meta http-equiv> elements
in HTML content, if the relevant HTTP header is
not present."
A suggested replacement is:
"In the following, proxies MUST check the
content for the presence and the value of
equivalent <meta http-equiv> elements, if
the relevant fields are not present in the
HTTP header.
The syntax of <meta http-equiv> elements,
their location in documents, and additional
constraints on handling them are specified
in the relevant standards (in particular
HTML 4.0.1 section 7.4.4, WML section 6.1
and 11.3.2, XHTML basic section 3.0, XHTML
1.1 section 3.0, XHTML mobile profile section
5.0)."
E.Casais
Received on Monday, 17 November 2008 14:41:39 UTC