Re: xhtml2 question: http-equiv

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> writes:

> If that's not satisfactory to you, you could try to raise an issue on
> the www-html-editor mailing list, but note that I've expressed my
> concerns about this approach long ago and got told it's out of scope
> of the RDF as^W in XHTML Task Force and the the response from the HTML
> Working Group was quite similar to the response cited in
>
>   http://www.w3.org/mid/42c0db53.352459687@smtp.bjoern.hoehrmann.de
>
> so I am not sure whether raising an issue makes any sense.

Thanks for the reply (and thanks to those who replied privately, along
the same lines at Bjoern). The motivation for my email was again not a
comment on the XHTML spec. It's in fact about VoiceXML and other specs
which used the old <meta> syntax from HTML4. The next versions of
those spec would be expected to remain in line with XHTML, and would
therefore need to switch to the new <meta> syntax.

The question whether http-equiv in XHTML is a good thing or not is
also relevant to VoiceXML, but my request to this list put that aside,
and focused on whether XHTML2 retained the feature or not. I now know
that the answer is no (at least as far as normative definitions go).

Cheers,

Max.

Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 09:01:30 UTC