- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 20:50:32 +0000 (UTC)
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Anne van Kesteren wrote: > On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:46:51 +0100, Philipp Serafin <phil127 at gmail.com> wrote: > > I guess this is more a cosmetic remark, but I thought I'd bring this up > > anyway. > > I've noticed that the paragraph on the MetaExtensions wiki page[1] still > > lists the Microformats process as the only way to get a keyword approved. > > The equivalent paragraph on the RelExtensions page[2] had been changed to > > "... or must be defined by a W3C specification in the Candidate > > Recommendation or Recommendation state." some time ago. > > Shouldn't both paragraphs be identical, or are @rel and <meta> values really > > handled differently? > > They should be identical, feel free to fix the page ;-) Actually in this instance it's the spec that will be fixed in due course. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 27 November 2008 12:50:32 UTC