- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 12:43:18 +0100
- To: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 14.11.2010 05:15, Jonas Sicking wrote: > ... > The best solution to a whole group of problems here is IMHO to define > that<meta http-equiv> has no relation to HTTP headers at all. Any and > all similarities with http and http headers is a historical artifact. > ... If that's what we think, we should clearly say that. That would mean clarifying that the section is *only* about meta/@http-equiv, and clearly state that *because* it's not about the HTTP header field the parsing rules can vary. That being said: even if we do that it would be good to reduce *unnecessary* deviations. For instance, it's totally not clear why "foocharset" is parsed as "charset", while "charsetfoo" is not (<http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9628#c3>). Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 14 November 2010 11:44:06 UTC