- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:17:44 -0400
- To: Jirka Kosek <jirka@kosek.cz>
- CC: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>, Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net> (janina@rednote.net)" <janina@rednote.net>, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, "Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org> (jbrewer@w3.org)" <jbrewer@w3.org>, Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
On 09/20/2012 04:24 AM, Jirka Kosek wrote: > On 20.9.2012 9:16, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis wrote: > >> Validators can support extension specs by including them as options >> for validating. (W3C validator already supports multiple >> specifications, including extension specificiations, e.g XHTML + >> RDFa.) > > Given the possible number of extension specs I don't think this is > practical approach. It would be nightmare to maintain validator which > supports HTML5 + any combination of RDFa/MD/longdesc/meta generator/... I can confirm what Benjamin stated: the existing validator already supports multiple specifications, including extension specifications. The validator that is deployed on the W3C site is based on validator.nu. It is an instance proof that it is indeed practical to build such a validator. The interface at the W3C site produces a message as which extensions are included by default. The interface at the validator.nu site has an input field where you can list schemas to be included. - Sam Ruby
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 12:18:11 UTC