Re: HTML5 Validator with RDFa 1.1 Support?

Hi Stéphane:
Thanks! The reason why I use(d) https://validator.nu/ is that the W3C deployment had pretty strict quota limits, while  https://validator.nu/ was a bit more lax. I will likely try to install the W3c variant of the validator.nu package on a server and try to use that. In the past, the problem was that the ruleset for the downloadable version was older than the one on the live version, and the live version could not be used for bulk validation without a very expensive subscription.

Martin
-----------------------------------
martin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de
mhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp


> On 12 May 2016, at 18:42, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> Last time I heard, the W3C was revamping their validator to be based on the same engine as validator.nu, with some different rules, and they were recommending to use https://validator.w3.org/ instead of https://validator.nu/. So, if https://validator.w3.org/ is working and validating your markup (and I think is the recommended validator), then why bother with https://validator.nu/?
> 
> Steph.
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all:
> 
> The popular HTML validator https://validator.nu/ seems to regard the @content attribute as invalid for any other HTML element than meta.
> 
> The W3C validator does not flag this as an error.
> 
> Does anybody have a clue why https://validator.nu/ does not suport HTML5+RDFa1.1?
> 
> Martin
> -----------------------------------
> martin hepp  http://www.heppnetz.de
> mhepp@computer.org          @mfhepp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Steph.

Received on Thursday, 12 May 2016 16:54:27 UTC