On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> 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.
Sure, but it's even better to be in line with how authors are actually
using the feature. A few years back, when speccing the Content-Language
pragma, the data I looked at indicated that most authors don't use the
pragma in a way consistent with the meaning of the HTTP header. They
instead use it as a default for setting the document language. There is
more value, IMHO, in making pages work, than in being consistent with a
rarely used feature from HTTP, especially given that that feature is of
dubious benefit as specced anyway.
--
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'