- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2011 22:51:09 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12456 Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kornel@geekhood.net --- Comment #1 from Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net> 2011-04-08 22:51:08 UTC --- Content-Type change via http-equiv is not possible in current browsers, but there are text/html pages in the wild that have application/xhtml+xml in http-equiv, so adding support for this could break those pages. I'm also wary of introducing in-document way of declaring "XHTMLness", especially one that would result in text/html interpretation in some browsers. It may be confusing like XHTML/1.0 DOCTYPEs were and cause some authors to produce text/html documents that fail in XML mode. I think current HTML5 state is better - there's only one way to enable XHTML and it's quite clear, even if not most convenient on shared hosting. Cache-related headers in response body won't be seen by HTTP proxies, which would make caching less effective or inconsistent. Widespread use of http-equiv headers would force proxies to parse HTML, and that would be significant and unfortunate change in the HTTP protocol. In my experience more and more hostings support .htaccess files, so I think that's a better direction, and hosts may support setting of HTTP headers sooner and with lower cost than it takes to change all HTTP agents support http-equiv. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 22:51:13 UTC