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 14:17:35 +0000
To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-22741-169-Hcdc2ds1TM@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22741

--- Comment #2 from Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com> ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> (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.
>

Not very easily, and not with the correct semantics.  Moreover, since all RDFa
Processors are required to process ALL of RDFa, there is no technical reason to
hamstring the content like that.

> > 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.

I don't have any way to gauge that, but I agree that the validator is pointed
at a much wider community than just W3C specification authors.  To that end, I
am not sure I would have it include any sort of RDFa as a default.  Of course,
since HTML has no built-in announcement mechanism to help the validator
understand what collection of optional HTML extensions are in use, that would
make it even more inconvenient for the casual user.

> 
> > 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).

I agree that there is such an option.

> 
> > 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.

I don't know how those things are connected.  If pubrules did that, and also if
there were a way to set my personal preferences via a cookie or something so it
would remember what variant I wanted each time I accessed it independently,
that would be a real help.

> 
> > 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).

Well..  hmm.  There are not very many people in this community, and of them
there are hardly any that know enough about RDFa and the desired document
semantics to have an opinion.  I will see if I can get a few of them to comment
on this thread.

Thanks for your attention.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 21 July 2013 14:17:38 UTC

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