W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Validation of Facebook Code

From: Marvin Steppat <codekicker@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 19:54:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEdpHZmSoVuhg-qEJOk2wEC1xQ_mGtKhBw3k0w5jLcmmM9uHkA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Thanks. I guess I will just leave it with that. It would have been nice to
be able to fix this validation problem but I can see why thats not possible.

2011/9/16 Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>

> On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Marvin Steppat
> <codekicker@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > when I validated http://codekicker.de/ I noticed that the typical
> > Facebook Markup
> >
> > <meta property="fb:page_id" content="17566831" />
> > was flagged as illegal.
>
> s/illegal/invalid/
>
> > That was a surprise because it is mandated this way by Facebook.
>
> Are you talking about this page?
>
> http://developers.facebook.com/docs/insights/
>
> Major web companies like Facebook, along with many other sources of
> developer influence, regularly suggest markup patterns that are
> non-conforming.
>
> > Can somebody comment on the proposed best-practice to deal with this
> situation? Is there a way to reach
> > full validity and be conformant with Facebook at the same time?
>
> Not using your declared conformance target of XHTML 1.0 Strict.
>
> It's not currently possible to serve markup as text/html that conforms
> to W3C (X)HTML Recommendations and uses the pattern suggested by
> Facebook.
>
> W3C is working on a spec that would allow this markup pattern to
> conform in text/html as HTML4 + RDFa, HTML5 + RDFa, or XHTML5 + RDFa:
>
>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/rdfa/
>
> As a working draft, this is a moving conformance target and may never
> become a Recommendation. The W3C validator currently only supports
> validating HTML4 + RDFa.
>
> How you deal with this situation depends on what you're trying to get
> out of validation. The following links might help you think about that
> question:
>
> http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#validation_basics
>
> http://validator.w3.org/docs/why.html
>
>
> http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#conformance-requirements-for-authors
>
> (My personal opinion is deviations from W3C Recommendations can be
> useful, but should be deliberate not accidental. A good example of
> useful non-conformance would be adding ARIA landmarks that improve
> accessibility to a document that otherwise claims compatibility with
> HTML 4.01. Consequently, the process of validation is more important
> than the result of validity.)
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 17:55:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:48 GMT