RE: meta tag for flags

Fantasai wrote:
>
> The scripts can validate them, too. I already need to write one that
> can parse
> these, to add in those HTML comments about e.g. Ahem requirements that
> your team
> requested.
>
> So, here are some possible flag names
>
>    ahem        (a)
>    scroll      (c) -- for tests that will only pass on continuous media
>    invalid     (f) -- replaces failure test type
>    image       (g)
>    interact    (i)
>    namespace   (n) -- (the harness script shouldn't convert these to
> HTML)
>    svg         (v)
>    paged       (p) -- for tests that will only pass on paged media
>    dom         (o)
>
> Any suggestions for improvement? :)
>
> > Also there is the  issue of how the tokens should be separated this
> wasn't an
> > issue with letters. Semi-colon, comma, other? I personally like semi-
> colons
> > in this case.
>
> I would just use whitespace, just like class attribute values.

Whitespace it is then.

Now that we are using tokens I think the meta element name attribute should be changed to required or requirements.

<meta name="required" content="PREREQUISITE TOKENS" />

We should add history to the token list since it is required for testing :visited.