- From: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 11:29:07 +0900
- To: Robert J Burns <rob@robburns.com>, Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, "'Ian Hickson'" <ian@hixie.ch>, "'HTML WG'" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
At 08:46 08/08/22, Robert J Burns wrote: >On Aug 22, 2008, at 2:20 AM, Andrew Cunningham wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, August 22, 2008 5:55 am, Henri Sivonen wrote: >>> >> >>>> In any case, all of the http-equiv attributes are defined by HTTP. >>>> That is its definition in HTML. >>> >>> It's not the definition in HTML5 as drafted. >> >> exactly, but I believe Roy's point is that Content-Language isn't >> part of >> HTML, rather its part of the HTTP standard and defined there, and that >> HTML5 should not be defining its own version. > >True, but the other contention (not mine) is that the http-equiv >pragmas are to be decoupled in HTML5 from their http definitions >(leaving just their names as a historical artifact). The biggest >problem I see with that is that we've seen no use cases or problem >statements to justify such a (potentially very confusing) decoupling. And that (as Roy has cited) that there are existing (server) implementations that depend on the coupling between HTTP headers and "meta http-equiv" data. So: No reason to change, all reasons for keeping it as is. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 08:00:18 UTC