Re: Null change proposal for ISSUE-88 (mark II): proposed note

On 09.04.2010 10:18, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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

And that's a problem in itself. I consider this a bug that needs to be 
fixed. Making more values non-conforming thus makes things worse.

> 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).

Which is *another* issue we'll have to resolve.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 9 April 2010 08:55:45 UTC