W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > April 2014

Re: FW: REV attribute on A and LINK elements

From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 09:15:42 -0400
Message-ID: <5351257E.4030008@intertwingly.net>
To: www-validator@w3.org
On 04/18/2014 09:06 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
> To answer the basic question, it is conforming.  HTML+RDFa is an
> approved extension to HTML5.

To clear up future confusion, consider filing a new bug and pointing to 
the following comment:

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=21341#c8

- Sam Ruby

> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 7:13 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org
> <mailto:mike@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     The validator now accepts full RDFa 1.1 markup in HTML documents.
>
>     Mark Rogers <mark.rogers@powermapper.com
>     <mailto:mark.rogers@powermapper.com>>, 2014-04-17 08:29 -0500:
>
>      > I believe the validator used to flag using the REV attribute on A and
>      > LINK elements as obsolete, but no longer does this. The REV
>     attribute is
>      > still marked as non-conforming in the HTML5  CR and nightly
>     specs. The
>      > language looks the same in all the versions:
>      >
>      > "11.2 Non-conforming features"
>      > "The following attributes are obsolete (though the elements are
>     still part of the language), and must not be used by authors:
>      > "rev on a elements"
>      > "rev on link elements"
>      >
>      >
>     http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/CR/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features
>      >
>     http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/CR-html5-20140204/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features
>      >
>     http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features
>      >
>      > Looking into this a bit deeper, I think there might be a mismatch
>     between the HTML5 CR and the RFDa recommendation (which says "RDFa
>     supports the use of @rel and @rev on any element.")
>      > http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rdfa-core-20130822/#examples
>      > http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rdfa-core-20130822/#A-rev
>      >
>      > There are also 4 tests in the conformance checker test suite that
>     use the REV attribute, with the naming indicating validators should
>     not flag a conformance error:
>      > html-rdfa/0006-isvalid.html
>      > html-rdfa/0007-isvalid.html
>      > html-rdfa/0009-isvalid.html
>      > html-rdfa/0010-isvalid.html
>      >
>      > So, what's the correct behaviour - is this conforming or
>     non-conforming?
>      >
>      > Best Regards
>      > Mark
>      >
>      > Mark Rogers - mark.rogers@powermapper.com
>     <mailto:mark.rogers@powermapper.com><mailto:mark.rogers@powermapper.com
>     <mailto:mark.rogers@powermapper.com>>
>      > PowerMapper Software Ltd - www.powermapper.com
>     <http://www.powermapper.com><http://www.powermapper.com>
>      > Registered in Scotland No 362274 Quartermile 2 Edinburgh EH3 9GL
>      >
>
>     --
>     Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike
>
>     -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>     Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
>     iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTURb/AAoJEIfRdHe8OkuVDCUP/3gCdjPUYVh4gyVLO6wkbo7K
>     kh0Gp80YKaHKhBCmLUAk0RFe8zy2XopTHMNSmIbT7HcFOL+s/UxtTN3hFtzsge03
>     zlIvuHHLJhwH8fBxqKYhZwgFFk7FpPk6A9EDnFNXZ+VcI7L51x9xOFrlXRmgLwZD
>     RT9AD+ehKz+zI3rDVwayjSbNEISpUCShG9EYSNtlKdhbkCvSFVBYFTdgi65lrT3j
>     yXvhIP7xhtuS449yr4xw0fu70qSEqGp6D5Qb8ud+wgaehxklCmddoeX0E+eIrZOS
>     8PBmBo8nNpzyAWeDPpTrKDZS42eozh66ILPMtrACwglJ2VBc9eXi1uU8xcHPEo94
>     IHRqlmR1bSiMcGPxVH4ys/2hADqik8Bp4b8HnMxX4bi1kuE28Xda0bLJaBm/iaun
>     XqWTBu/foWpxVsCQsI7nwrMgwX2exyx3cpDWLW8DNZm3isMYCIie9L2znbfhdK5L
>     uauVqbD5V2zGXAN7AQZEw11mFNhfl4+pYAX5Fl4Riufs3vz/01t8E/uQjzLjbQYH
>     atrakFJQyWm+NEmw+EVOHI19Kcv6mrMsKx74SY6fRZrgOZd6v92F18Yany5ro2ey
>     tQGR43ByIVUAy3FmwihlLLlB+UVvwYytHNEYmvdBc3pOnyacKIuUzVUvf1HtTjKC
>     XS5qIzOhDVyNyxUSDMdU
>     =psAn
>     -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
Received on Friday, 18 April 2014 13:16:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:18:10 UTC