RE: question on the RDFa validation service...

Thanks Olivier for this final clarification!

So, to conclude:

1. Use 

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML+RDFa 1.0//EN"
 "http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/DTD/xhtml-rdfa-1.dtd">

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Note: Even if the current DTD might be a bit outdated,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 

http://validator.w3.org/

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.

Cheers,
	Michael

----------------------------------------------------------
 Michael Hausenblas, MSc.
 Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
 JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
  
 http://www.joanneum.at/iis/
----------------------------------------------------------
 

>-----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:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/changes.html#a_changes
>
>cheers,
>-- 
>olivier
>

Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 06:30:17 UTC