Le 18 févr. 2009 à 06:28, Henri Sivonen a écrit : > Note that the Validator.nu HTML Parser currently exposes a XOM tree, > so a parser exposing XOM is not a theoretical construct. None of the > currently drafted HTML5 features need the change that exposing > xmlns:foo-based RDFa would require for consistency with the exposure > of xmlns:foo in XML. I still don't get this. Could you explain? Let's suppose, Gedanken experiment, that the few attributes (@content, @about, @property, @resource, @datatype, @typeof and xmlns:foo) needed for "validation talisman" [(c) hsivonen] are added to html5. For example, xmlns:cc="http://creativecommons.org/ns#" is declared And in the document, there is <a rel="cc:license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/" >Creative Commons License</a>. For validation, only html:a, html:rel, html:href matters. no? An authoring help tool could go further, but on another layer, such as checking if the "cc:" in "cc:license" has been declared. We could also imagine a tool which once the values have been extracted to create a graph, if the graph is valid. But all of that is not in the html5 territory. It would be like trying to validate a jpeg image or even more the XMP content of a JPEG image. I admit, I'm quite lost (putting aside the RDFa for declaring metadata as a solution and talking only about the DOM tree). -- Karl Dubost Montréal, QC, Canada http://twitter.com/karlproReceived on Wednesday, 18 February 2009 20:28:19 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 February 2009 20:28:21 GMT