- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:50:49 +0200
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- CC: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Phillips, Addison" <addison@lab126.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, "public-i18n-core@w3.org" <public-i18n-core@w3.org>
On 29.04.2010 10:40, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:34:38 +0900, Julian Reschke > <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: >> On 29.04.2010 10:26, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >>> ... >>> To be clear: are you saying you object to the I18N WG's preferred >>> resolution? If so, we will likely take this issue to a survey. >>> ... >> >> Yes. It's not the HTML spec's job to restrict the contents of what can >> go into meta/@http-equiv; in particular to make it's use non-conforming. > > I still don't understand why you think that is so. Servers never > implemented the feature (and it was intended for them). User agents > ended up implementing the feature in limited fashion. What is the > problem with writing this down? We have heard from at least one CMS implementor (Roy) that it is used in practice. Just that *most* servers don't use it doesn't mean it's not used at all. There's simply no good reason to break this feature (in calling it "non-conforming"). Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 08:51:37 UTC