- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 13:58:27 +0100
- To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- CC: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 14.11.2010 17:20, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > ... >> 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. > > If such a statement was added, would you consider that sufficient to resolve this issue and ISSUE-126 by amicable resolution? > ... Here are a few things that would need to happen (sorry, don't have the time to look at the details right now): - clarify what the algorithm applies to - clarify that the conforming syntax is a subset of the syntax allowed for the HTTP header field (for instance, neither double quotes nor single quotes are conforming) - clarify what field values that are conforming in HTTP are non-conforming Also, *if* we agree that the algorithm is for http-equiv only, then the whole note about being a "willful" violation of HTTP becomes questionable; it should be rewritten to actually state what the difference is, and why this is the case (and as demonstrated before, "compatibility with legacy content" as single reason is incorrect). Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 12:59:10 UTC