Re: Reviewing Last Call RDFa

Tim,

In your last email to this list:

with regards to the XHTML namespace document, you wrote:

> Why not put the GRDDL pointer in the xHTML namespace document? 

We resolved, during last week's telecon, to indeed update the XHTML 
namespace document with a pointer to RDFa for follow-your-nose. I'm not 
entirely sure, from reading the notes, whether we agreed this would be a 
GRDDL pointer specifically. I will confirm on tomorrow's call and follow 
up with you.

With regards to DTDs, you wrote:

> The validator is a piece of code which W3C runs as a service.  It is a  
> service to support the specs, not the other way around!  Sometimes we  
> get things back to front in this world.
> I have been on a crusade for  while to make the validator accept  
> extensions in general as that is how HTML and XML work (in different  
> ways).  I have been discussing this with Olivier.

During last week's telecon, we resolved as follows:

Since we use the word "SHOULD" with respect to DTDs, we believe this 
leaves enough wiggle room for document authors to stop using DTDs once a 
  schema-based W3C-endorsed validator becomes available. We're all in 
strong favor of schema-based validation, but until validator.w3.org 
supports it (which depends on another REC-track document), we can't 
leave our users without a complete validation story.


-Ben

Received on Thursday, 10 April 2008 02:54:09 UTC