- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 14:54:31 +0100
- To: Ben Adida <ben@adida.net>
- CC: Fabien Gandon <Fabien.Gandon@sophia.inria.fr>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, GRDDL Working Group <public-grddl-wg@w3.org>, public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org
From a GRDDL perspective, there is an expectation of handling invalid XHTML (like other user-agents) I tend to agree with Ben Jeremy Ben Adida wrote: > Fabien Gandon wrote: >> Well I could need some help here because I can imagine that what needs >> to be added is something like: >> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" >> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd" >> [ >> <!ATTLIST html >> xmlns:v CDATA #FIXED "http://www.w3.org/2006/vcard/ns#" >> xmlns:rdf CDATA #FIXED "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" >> xmlns:h CDATA #FIXED "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" >> xmlns CDATA #FIXED "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" >> > >> ] > > I would rather we *not* do this. From our last RDFa telecon, we agreed > that this was a screwup with how the W3C validator works, in that it > doesn't do XML DTDs. Let's not hack around a bug with something that > will scare people away from RDFa needlessly. > > -Ben > -- Hewlett-Packard Limited registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN Registered No: 690597 England
Received on Thursday, 19 April 2007 13:54:45 UTC