- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:55:31 +0300
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On Sep 1, 2009, at 18:31, Mark Baker wrote: > FWIW, I had a look through the obsolete list last night and found some > which had properly defined semantics. For example, "plaintext" was > defined to mean the same thing as "pre". That's good, and what we > should strive for for the examples given by Julian. If that level of definition is sufficient, isn't this on the same level for scheme: "User agents may treat the scheme content attribute on the meta element as an extension of the element's name content attribute when processing a meta element with a name attribute whose value is one that the user agent recognises as supporting the scheme attribute. User agents are encouraged to ignore the scheme attribute and instead process the value given to the metadata name as if it had been specified for each expected value of the scheme attribute." If plaintext *means* the same thing as pre given this statement about UA *behavior*, "User agents must treat plaintext elements in a manner equivalent to pre elements.", isn't the *behavioral* statement quoted above enough to define @scheme to *mean* nothing (i.e. it's a talisman)? Also, doesn't the following "define" @profile on at least the same level as plaintext is defined? "When the attribute would be used as a globally unique name, the user agent should instead always assume that all known profiles apply to all pages, and should therefore apply the conventions of all known metadata profiles to the document. When the attribute's value would be handled as a URL and dereferenced, the user agent may resolve the attribute's value, and if that is successful, may then fetch the resulting absolute URL and apply the appropriate processing." -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Wednesday, 2 September 2009 06:56:23 UTC