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

Re: 'XHTML + RDFa 1.0' validation?

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:14:20 +0200
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-Id: <200811251914.20702.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

Olivier Thereaux: 
> 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

Ah, yes, nice, I did not see it. I did not look yet in the informative
appendices. It is no problem of course to add this, to check 

> > 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.

For them if found the doctypes and use them since years. I think, when 
I tried, I had only a problem with the SVG basic 1.1 doctype provided 
in the mobile recommendation - the validator did not like it. But the 
basic variant is discontinued anyway... 

> 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

I do not have an account (yet), but if no one else with an 
account is interested, I can create one ...

> > 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.

Yes. It helps a lot to have a reasonable check, especially if one writes
tests - one is often surprised about the results and is always looking, 
if it is only an error in the expectations, in the document, in the viewers 
or something more serious ;o)
This remains a problem, but I did not look around, if there is a program
able at least to check a document with this RelaxNG. 
However, the more tricky things one has to test are only in the prose
of the recommendation anyway.

Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2008 18:26:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:57 UTC