W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-cvs@w3.org > July 2013

[Bug 22741] validator.w3.org does not give an option to validate HTML+RDFa

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 03:28:36 +0000
To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-22741-169-zLo6O6ebds@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22741

Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mike@w3.org

--- Comment #1 from Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> HTML+RDFa is a W3C Proposed Recommendation, and it is currently in use in a
> number of specifications under development with the permission of the
> publication folks.  ReSpec automatically generates HTML+RDFa (or
> XHTML+RDFa).

It's imaginable that ReSpec could provide an option for generating RDFa Lite as
well.

> Unfortunately, the validator complains about RDFa in
> documents, seemingly because it is enforcing the RDFa Lite restrictions on
> the documents.  This is causing some consternation in the W3C spec
> development community.

Whatever such consternation there might be, it should be weighed against the
needs of the wider community of validator users. I don't think any of us would
want the validator optimized for the needs of the W3C spec-development
community to the possible detriment of the needs of the wider community. And I
don't think at this point in the wider community of validator users there's
significant consternation about RDFa Lite being the default.

> There should be an option to validate using HTML+RDFa, not just HTML+RDFa
> Lite.

There is a such an option at http://validator.w3.org/nu -- which is the service
that this bug was filed against (Product: Validator, Component: HTML5).

> And this option should be the default, at least when checking from
> 'pubrules'

Yes, it could be made the default for W3C pubrules users without it needing to
be made the default for all other users as well.

> because RDFa Lite is inadequate for the semantic markup that is
> being embedded in W3C specifications.

I don't think there's yet any actual consensus in the W3C spec-development
community about that being the case. I'd think before that statement was just
accepted as true, there'd need to be a lot more discussion about it in the W3C
spec-development community (e.g., on the spec-prod mailing list or somewhere).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 21 July 2013 03:28:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:17:55 UTC