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

Re: 'XHTML + RDFa 1.0' validation?

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:28:47 -0500
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-Id: <C97917CD-0850-4F6D-AE1A-6A0EC5C1F0D2@w3.org>
To: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>


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
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 19:28:56 GMT

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