W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > November 2010

Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-125

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2010 07:05:52 -0500
Message-ID: <4CDFD0A0.8050809@intertwingly.net>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 11/14/2010 02:21 AM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, 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.
> For what it's worth, that's more or less what HTML does currently.
>> By defining that http-equiv isn't related to http at all, we can remove
>> *all* willful violations, since the only spec we'd be following is
>> HTML5.
> That is technically the case currently already; the only reason I
> mentioned the "willful violation" here is that people seem to like when I
> document known differences where they might expect things to work as per
> other specs. I'm happy to remove it if people think that's more accurate.
>> It would also save the working group time by invalidating this and other
>> issues.
> I'm happy to make it more explicit if that would help, either in response
> to a bug or (if the chairs thing that would be more helpful) in response
> to a working group decision stemming from an counter-change-proposal for
> this or another related issue.

Any approach that ends with amicable consensus would be fine with the 

Failing that, we will proceed with a call for alternate or counter 
proposals.  Even after such a call is made, if amicable consensus can be 
reached without actually writing such a change proposal, the issue will 
be closed based on that consensus.

- Sam Ruby
Received on Sunday, 14 November 2010 12:06:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 9 October 2021 18:45:27 UTC