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

Re: Change Proposal for ISSUE-125

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:34:11 +0100
To: "David Singer" <singer@apple.com>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Maciej Stachowiak" <mjs@apple.com>, "Jonas Sicking" <jonas@sicking.cc>, "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.vma8y8a364w2qv@anne-van-kesterens-macbook-pro.local>
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 03:36:07 +0100, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>  
> As mentioned before, there is no reason for any difference in syntax.
> In fact, there is none in practice.  The only reason that this is an
> issue at all is because the draft contains incorrect statements and
> unimplemented algorithms, apparently based on bugs in a single browser.
> The solution is to remove the contradiction from the spec by restoring
> the original text that defined meta and http-equiv.

It is not true at all that browsers follow HTTP for <meta http-equiv>.


   <meta http-equiv=content-type content=text/xml>

will not be honored.

Not all HTTP headers supported at the HTTP layer are supported in <meta  
http-equiv> either. Only a couple. Furthermore, per HTML4 <meta  
http-equiv> was some preprocessing instruction for servers, that never got  
implemented. So restoring the original text -- assuming you are referring  
to HTML4 -- would not work either.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 10:35:03 UTC

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