Re: <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge;chrome=1">

On 03/29/2011 09:18 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Philip Taylor (Webmaster, Ret'd) wrote:
>> Glynn Williams wrote:
>>> This statement is valid, but shows non-valid for HTML5:
>>> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge;chrome=1">
>> What are you using as the definition of "valid", Glynn ?
> Apparently Glynn is worried about the report of the W3C Markup
> Validator. The validator is correct in this issue, as the current HTML5
> drafts define a limited set of allowed values for http-equiv, not
> including the one needed here.
> The tag is used to make IE behave the best it can, in "standards" mode,
> and if the author knows what he is doing (the page is designed to work
> in that mode), the tag is useful, due to IE 9's annoying features.
> Validation is a tool, not an end, and there is no merit in getting a
> "clean" "validation" report from an experimental, poorly documented
> heuristic checker (which is what W3C Validator is in HTML5 mode),
> checking against an unknown version of some work in progess (which is
> what HTML5 is). It's a very useful tool if you wish to author in HTML5
> style - but there's no point in trying to please it in matters like this.

There is merit to the validation tool staying current with the 
specification, and for people to see if the messages it produces are 
appropriate and helpful.

HTML5 will not always remain a work in progress.  Absent any feedback, 
it likely will remain largely as it is.  If there is something aspect of 
HTML5 that people would like addressed before it becomes a W3C 
Recommendation, I would suggest participating:

- Sam Ruby

Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2011 14:37:40 UTC