NOTE: The current preferred location for bug reports is the GitHub issue tracker.
Bug 966 - Pragma extensions like http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible not recognized
Pragma extensions like http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible not recognized
Status: NEW
Product: Validator.nu
Classification: Unclassified
Component: General
HEAD
All All
: P2 normal
Assigned To: Nobody
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2013-03-01 13:19 CET by Jukka K. Korpela
Modified: 2013-03-01 14:24 CET (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Jukka K. Korpela 2013-03-01 13:19:50 CET
All the Pragma Extensions described on the page
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/PragmaExtensions
are reported as errors. The following document causes three error messages ("Bad value ... for attribute http-equiv on element meta"), but it should pass:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv=PICS-Label content=foo>
<meta http-equiv=x-dns-prefetch-control content=foo>
<meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible  content=foo>
Comment 1 Michael[tm] Smith 2013-03-01 13:50:43 CET
(In reply to comment #0)
> All the Pragma Extensions described on the page
> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/PragmaExtensions
> are reported as errors.

Note that the spec says "Such extensions must use a name that is identical to an HTTP header registered in the Permanent Message Header Field Registry"

> The following document causes three error messages
> ("Bad value ... for attribute http-equiv on element meta"), but it should pass:
> 
> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <title></title>
> <meta http-equiv=PICS-Label content=foo>

That one's in the registry, so yeah, that's a bug we need to fix.

> <meta http-equiv=x-dns-prefetch-control content=foo>
> <meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible  content=foo>

Those are not in the registry. (And I don't know what the rules are for that particular registry, but I'd wonder whether "X-*" values are even registerable.)
Comment 2 Jukka K. Korpela 2013-03-01 14:10:17 CET
(In reply to comment #1)
 
> Note that the spec says "Such extensions must use a name that is identical to
> an HTTP header registered in the Permanent Message Header Field Registry"

Oh, I missed that. But all the three names are there, and have been for some time I presume. And from the discussion at
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Talk:PragmaExtensions
I gather that this is intentional. At least Hixie seems to be saying that the wiki page is the criterion to be used, and the Permanent Message Header Field Registry is out of sync.
Comment 3 Michael[tm] Smith 2013-03-01 14:24:19 CET
(In reply to comment #2)
> Oh, I missed that. But all the three names are there, and have been for some
> time I presume. And from the discussion at
> http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/Talk:PragmaExtensions
> I gather that this is intentional. At least Hixie seems to be saying that the
> wiki page is the criterion to be used, and the Permanent Message Header Field
> Registry is out of sync.

Yeah, Anne just now pointed that out to me too. But the current spec still says that they must be in the Permanent Message Header Field, so for now we gotta go with what's in the spec.

For the time being, at Anne's suggestion I divided the extensions up into Allowed ones and Proposed ones on http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/PragmaExtensions