- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:45:23 +0200
- To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>
On 16/7/09 11:20, Ian Hickson wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Toby Inkster wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote: >> >>> Authors must not use elements, attributes, and attribute values that >>> are not permitted by this specification or other applicable >>> specifications. >>> -- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#semantics-0 >> Which "other specifications" are "applicable"? > > Pretty much any that claim to be and that the people affected agree are > applicable. If an RDFa specification said that text/html could have > arbitrary xmlns:* attributes, then the HTML5 specification would (by > virtue of the above-quoted sentence) defer to it and thus it would be > allowed. Similarly, Microsoft could write a spec and claim<marquee> is > valid, as well as<msword> and<excel>. > > Of course, if a community doesn't acknowledge the authority of such a > spec, and they _do_ acknowledge the authority of the HTML5 spec, then it > would be (for them) as if that spec didn't exist. Similarly, there might > be a community that only acknowledges the HTML4 spec and doesn't consider > HTML5 to be relevant, in which case for them, HTML5 isn't relevant. > > This is how specs work. :-) How would you expect a validator for such a flexible format to work? I just tried validator.nu HTML5 (experimental) on a document with xmlns:*, and got "Error: Attribute xmlns:foaf not allowed here." Should these errors be demoted to warnings? Or each community makes it's own validator? Dan
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 09:46:00 UTC