W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > August 2007

RE: question on the RDFa validation service...

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:31:42 +0200
Message-ID: <768DACDC356ED04EA1F1130F97D2985201255EA2@RZJC2EX.jr1.local>
To: "olivier Thereaux" <ot@w3.org>
Cc: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Shane McCarron" <shane@aptest.com>, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, "W3C RDFa task force" <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, "www-validator Community" <www-validator@w3.org>

Thanks Olivier for this final clarification!

So, to conclude:

1. Use 


in your XHTML document.

Note: Even if the current DTD might be a bit outdated,
AFAIK the URL is a stable one. We are currently work like 
hell to get the syntax/rules, the DTD, and the Test Cases
done and in sync. Stay tuned!

2. Use 


to validate you XHTML documents, and please let 
us (public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org) and the validator 
community (www-validator@w3.org) know, when you're
having troubles.


 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH

>-----Original Message-----
>From: olivier Thereaux [mailto:ot@w3.org] 
>Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 8:16 AM
>To: Hausenblas, Michael; Niklas Lindström
>Cc: Ivan Herman; Shane McCarron; W3C RDFa task force; 
>www-validator Community
>Subject: Re: question on the RDFa validation service...
>Hi all,
>On Aug 8, 2007, at 23:41 , Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
>> So, to clarify this: It is NOT the RDFa TF that has 'anything'
>> to do with this validation service [1]. The QA WG develops and  
>> maintains
>> it [2]; now it seems they adopted Shanes's DTD [3].
>> All credits (and suggestions) should therefore go to 'www- 
>> validator@w3.org'
>> (I cc'ed them already in this mail).
>To be entirely fair, kudos go to Shane and the TF for good  
>coordination work, for informing the validator community (not the QA  
>WG, BTW, as that working group doesn't exist any more) of that new  
>DTD and helping us patch the validator for a couple of issues  
>annoying when validating XHTML+RDFa.
>Niklas Wrote:
>>> xml:base doesn't seem to work either.
>> [...]
>>> I also miss an "XHTML plus RDFa" entry in the "Document Type" select
>>> of "More Options".
>Good point. Unfortunately we've just released a couple of versions of  
>the validator and there's no clear timeline as to when the next  
>release should be, but if the RDFa TF thinks it'd be a good thing, we  
>can add it in CVS for now, and in the next release.
>>> Btw, should lang be allowed (along with xml:lang)? The validator
>>> doesn't support it for XHTML 1.1 (but for e.g. XHTML 1.0 Strict).
>As far as I can tell, no:
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 06:30:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:01:51 UTC