- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:50:53 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10152
Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |eoconnor@apple.com
--- Comment #24 from Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> 2011-03-21 20:50:53 UTC ---
> If the meta content-language element is obsoleted by the spec, will
> the fallback rules remain?
Yes, processing <meta http-equiv=content-language> in this way is
required, due to legacy content.
> It doesn't seem logical to forbid use of a construct then go on to
> describe how that construct affects behaviour in the browser.
It may not be logical, but as the #whatwg topic reminds us, we need to
leave our sense of logic at the door when it comes to the processing
required by legacy content. There are many, many features which are
considered nonconforming from an authoring standpoint but are
nevertheless specced in (sometimes excruciating) detail.
--
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, 21 March 2011 20:50:55 UTC