W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > November 2008

'XHTML + RDFa 1.0' validation?

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:32:27 +0200
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-Id: <200811241432.28016.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

Hello www-validator,

I tried to check the validation of the new XHTML version 'XHTML+RDFa 1.0'
by using the original example from the recommendation:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#docconf

This looks like this:
#############

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" 
    version="XHTML+RDFa 1.0"
    xml:lang="en">
  <head>
    <title>Virtual Library</title>
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>Moved to <a href="http://example.org/">example.org</a>.</p>
  </body>
</html>

#############

Because it has a version attribute, it is possible to identify the
version. And the recommendation does not mention in 4.1 that
a doctype declaration is required.


The current result from the validator is, that it assumes, that
the file is (wrong) XHTML 1.0 Transitional with automatic
detection. 
With manual indication (is 'XHTML + RDFa' correct by the way?)
it warns, that a doctype declaration is missing.
The related page 
http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
does not list a doctype declaration for 'XHTML+RDFa 1.0'. 
This fits to the missing requirement to provide a doctype 
declaration additionally to the version attribute in the 
recommendation.

Is it possible, that the validator can identify the version
automatically with the version attribute to get results 
better fitting to the recommendation?
Else many authors might get confused by the validator
results for this quite interesting XHTML version.


Best wishes

Olaf


PS: 
A similar problem may occur soon as SVG tiny 1.2
becomes a recommendation.
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 13:37:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:33 GMT