[whatwg] X-UA-Compatible, X-* headers, validators, etc.
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen at iki.fi
Tue Oct 20 00:35:25 PDT 2009
On Oct 12, 2009, at 13:09, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2009, at 11:57 PM, Henri Sivonen wrote:
>
>> On Oct 10, 2009, at 08:20, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>>> I think the HTML5 requirement should be changed to allow any
>>> header in the Permanent Message Header Field Registry.
>>> Effectively, this would require either an RFC or an Open Standard.
>>> This seems just as good for HTML5's purposes as requiring an RFC.
>>
>> I disagree unless we really want to enable http-equiv as a way of
>> specifying browser-only HTTP header equivalents that intermediaries
>> ignore.
>
> Sorry, my statement was ambiguous. To be more specific:
>
> "I think the HTML5 requirement should be changed to allow any header
> in the Permanent Message Header Field Registry to be registered as a
> pragma extension (instead of only headers defined by an RFC)."
OK. I misunderstood what you meant.
>> OTOH, if we want to enable only pragmas that the HTML layer must
>> recognize for backwards-compatibility, enumerating the permitted
>> values is quite reasonable.
>
> Are you suggesting that the pragma extensions registry should be
> removed entirely?
I'm not sure. I think it would be preferable to stay away from http-
equiv, though.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen at iki.fi
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
More information about the whatwg
mailing list