- From: Leif H Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
- Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 13:24:10 +0300
- To: hsivonen@iki.fi
- Cc: jkorpela@cs.tut.fi, www-validator@w3.org, jfrench@ixley.com
Henri Sivonen 4/8/'11, 9:43: > On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 09:01 +0300, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: >>> Is X-UA-Compatible meta tags used for any other thing than that >>> specific thing? AFAIK, X-UA-Compatible is only used for IE browsers: >>> Either to trigger a certain "compatibility mode" within IE's native >>> Trident engine. OR to trigger IE to start the ChromeFrame. >> >> It is used to select one of the modes of IE. > > Or put the other way, it is used to enable deliberate non-compliance > with the spec when choosing a past version of the Trident engine. It > would be rather odd for the spec to allow deliberate non-conformance > with the spec since requiring conformance is what specs do. +1 >> The details are messy and not >> relevant here, since from the perspective of HTML specifications, the >> issue >> is realism versus attempt at regulate what may appear in meta tags. > > Just to understand your position about realism and validation better: > Should <g:plusone></g:plusone> validate in your opinion? (It's realism > created by blatantly disregarding the extension points that the HTML > spec does offer.) With regard to the uses that Microsoft IE makes of X-UA-COMPATIBLE, them I suppose that there aren't any relevant extension points... -- Leif H Silli
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2011 10:25:00 UTC