Re: 'XHTML + RDFa 1.0' validation?

On 24-Nov-08, at 8:32 AM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote:

>
> 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

If I remember correctly, the specification says that if you want to  
validate, using the doctype is recommended.

And indeed,
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#a_deployment


> Is it possible, that the validator can identify the version
> automatically with the version attribute to get results
> better fitting to the recommendation?

In theory yes. That's actually the way we do for SVG 1.0 and 1.1.

I don't get the impression that the XHTML WG meant to have RDFa in  
XHTML validated without a doctype, but that notwithstanding, the major  
barrier to it is a matter of a small-ish patch in the validator. Would  
you like to add this as a feature request in bugzilla?

http://validator.w3.org/feedback.html#bugreport

> A similar problem may occur soon as SVG tiny 1.2
> becomes a recommendation.

SVG 1.2 is a somewhat different question. Unlike HTML it really  
doesn't need a doctype, and indeed the 1.2 version doesn't have a DTD  
at all.

HTH,
-- 
olivier