[log in to unmask] wrote before ietf:
|I think it's farier to say that most people on this list have not read
|(and have had no reason to read) RFC1866 in detail. I don't think it's
|ambiguous in this regard. The headers are unordered.
If we're going to use a strict interpretation of RFC1866 in this discussion,
then let's use the entire commentary on META and HEAD:
from RFC1866 http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/html-spec/html-spec_5.html#SEC5.2
Each META element specifies a name/value pair. If multiple META elements are
provided with the same name, their combined contents--concatenated as a
comma-separated list--is the value associated with that name. (13)
Does this mean that every DC encoding must be cleanly glomable into a
comma-separated list so that we are clean with RFC1866? Does this mean that
you can't have unescaped commas in META content?
Lee again
|I think it's farier to say that most people on this list have not read
|(and have had no reason to read) RFC1866 in detail. I don't think it's
|ambiguous in this regard. The headers are unordered.
Its been a year or more since I've picked up RFC1866, but my take on the
unordering of headers is that in how the content model of the HEAD is
instantiated, there is no significance in order, that is any order is
permisable. LINK, META and TITLE may be intermixed in whatever way the author
wants. The distinction I see makes the HEAD content model from RFC1866:
TITLE & ISINDEX? & BASE? & NEXTID? +(META|LINK)
unordered ( & is SGML content model for 'elements in any order') as opposed to
TITLE, ISINDEX?, BASE?, NEXTID?, META+, LINK+
where the ',' would require ordering. HTML documents are ordered <HEAD><BODY>,
HEAD is not ordered.
The HTML-erb should be asked to clarify the language describing (un)ordering in
the HEAD as applies to authoring tools.
-marc
--
|