- From: Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@iki.fi>
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:33:07 +0200
- To: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz> wrote: > On 22.3.2012 12:17, Henri Sivonen wrote: > >> Right. Though asserting that its-locNote is valid would be a terrible >> idea, since the parsing algorithm cannot output such an attribute in >> the document tree. It makes more sense to assert that its-loc-note is >> valid. > > Yes, sure attribute names will be lowercased. > > Henri are you willing to add support for such additional HTML5+XXX > vocabularies into validator.nu given that you are provided with RELAX NG > schema implementing additional xxx- prefixed attributes? If XXX is supposed to be browser-sensitive and is supported by two or more major browsers and the RELAX NG schema plugs into the HTML5 schema and comes under a Free Software license, yes. If XXX is not meant to be browser-sensitive, it's harder to give exact criteria, but it depends on XXX being on a REC track, XXX being supported by real (non-browser) software that's used with HTML files that are also browser-targeted, XXX support having real user demand from validator users, XXX not confusing Web authors about its browser-insensitiveness, etc. I don't know enough about ITS to give an ITS-specific answer right now. -- Henri Sivonen hsivonen@iki.fi http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 13:33:42 UTC