Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-125

On Nov 16, 2010, at 10:00 AM, David Singer wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2010, at 4:58 , Julian Reschke wrote:
>> 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).
> It's worth noting that something that is not part of the HTTP protocol per se, and hence not subject to its rules, can hardly be said to be in willful violation of them.  Differ from them, perhaps.

The sole purpose of http-equiv is to state that this metadata name is
defined by the HTTP standard and provided in the HTTP field-value syntax.
Otherwise, use the name attribute.


Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2010 18:27:04 UTC