- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 01:18:59 -0700
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, public-html@w3.org
On Apr 9, 2010, at 1:08 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On 08.04.2010 22:37, Ian Hickson wrote: >> ... >> That does make sense. Would it be acceptable then to just make the >> pragma >> non-conforming, thus removing any valid syntax at all? >> ... > > Nope. > > The syntax of the value isn't controlled by HTML. > > It's ok to add warnings and recommendations about what better > alternatives are there. What Ian suggests would not affect the syntax of the value at all. Only a particular set of http-equiv values are currently conforming. These include Content-Language, Content-Type, Default-Style and Refresh. What Ian is proposing is to remove Content-Language from the list. This would not affect the syntax of the Content-Language header, just as the lack of support for http-equiv="ETag" does not affect the syntax of the ETag header. Also, making Content-Language nonconforming in the base spec would still leave it free to be defined as an extension, since http-equiv is an extension point (albeit one with a wiki-based registration mechanism). Note: I'm not rendering an opinion on whether dropping Content- Language as conforming is a good idea or not. I'm jut trying to explain the actual effect of Ian's proposed change, as I understand it. Regards, Maciej
Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 08:19:34 UTC