- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 09:39:34 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12918 --- Comment #4 from Hans <h.n.vandergraaf@gmail.com> 2011-06-13 09:39:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #3) > Why is that a problem? Is it a problem that the "HTML5 standard" "changes" if a > new language subtag for a natural language is added to the IANA language subtag > registry? The problem is pricipal: The content of a website should not be part of a standard. More practical. I have tried to create a modern website which is accessible and usable. For that reason I have used some meta keywords. I was very surprised to find out that the webpages did not validate due to the fact that I used apparently old fashioned keywords. I tried to follow the HTML5 standard, for example by studying the list at http://www.w3schools.com/html5/html5_reference.asp and more specific (after discovering that the website did not validate) the meta tag reference, found at http://www.w3schools.com/html5/tag_meta.asp and http://www.w3schools.com/html5/att_meta_name.asp At this last page there is a list of possible metatags, without a reference to http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/MetaExtensions Also at this page there is stated that "You can define your own names in a schema" for other keywords. However there is no reference to a page which instructs you how to do this. In practice I found that at the site of Cynthia says... they still recommend the use of meta name="language". See for example: http://www.contentquality.com/mynewtester/cynthia.exe?rptmode=2&url1=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.helenahoeve.nl%2F (second row of the Priority 3 Verification Checklist). Is it there for backwards compatability? And should it be elimated in the HTML5 standard? I still have my doubts. That's why I think meta keywords should not be part of the standard. -- 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 Monday, 13 June 2011 09:39:36 UTC