- From: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:09:05 +0900
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>, Divya Manian <divya.manian@gmail.com>, Martin Kliehm <martin.kliehm@namics.com>, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>, "<public-html@w3.org>" <public-html@w3.org>, "www-international@w3.org" <www-international@w3.org>
On 2009/10/27 19:37, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Simon Pieters wrote: >> This doesn't match what's specced for<meta http-equiv=content-language >> content=foo,bar>. > > That's intentional, and is based on data about how people actually use > that pragma. There's always a way to justify inconsistent choices (be it browser implementations, 'data' about how people (who?) use some feature (at what point in time?),...). But it would be way better to be consistent. And there is always a way to justify making choices that everybody except those knowing all the details of the spec don't understand. But it would be way better to make choices that are easy to understand (e.g. http-equiv actually meaning what it says, namely "equivalent to the corresponding HTTP header"). There are lots of cases where over time, people have come to a better understanding of how things work. For stuff that authors/producers aren't supposed to produce, I don't mind too much that HTML5 is hopelessly complex and inconsistent. I can live without remembering it all, and can tell others to avoid it. However, for stuff like the above, which may be used even by very consciously clean developers, creating inconsistencies such the above is a heavy negative legacy. Regards, Martin. -- #-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
Received on Tuesday, 27 October 2009 11:09:58 UTC