W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > July 2013

RE: Help with Pubrules Compliance for Concepts

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 18:13:19 +0200
To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <060801ce78d1$6731d4a0$35957de0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
Oh.. and btw. for those of you who don't know yet. You can use this
validator:

  http://validator.w3.org/nu/

(I'll add a link to the wiki page)


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler



> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Wood [mailto:david@3roundstones.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 04, 2013 5:42 PM
> To: Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Cc: RDF WG
> Subject: Re: Help with Pubrules Compliance for Concepts
> 
> Thanks for the help, Peter and Markus.  I have created a static version
> and checked it in.
> 
> However, the document previously validated using the W3C Markup
> Validation Service but the static version created from ReSpec shows 81
> errors.
> 
> Speaking as a volunteer with too little time available, this frustrates
> me greatly.  Am I expected to clean these up by hand?
> 
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 4, 2013, at 05:43, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider"
> <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > See
> > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Tips_on_publishing_ReSpec-
> based_documents
> > for the process.
> >
> > That document is a bit inscrutable in one spot.   Respec has a
> special process that is triggered by cntrl-alt-shift-S which produces a
> non-respec version of the document that you can then copy and paste
> into a text editor and then put into the drafts area. Warning:  this
> triggering is somewhat fragile, it happened for me only about 1/4 of
> the time I tried the incantation.
> >
> > peter
> >
> > On 07/03/2013 07:35 PM, David Wood wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Several of you have offered to help get Concepts ready with respect
> to Pubrules.  Thanks.  It looks like I'll need it.
> >>
> >> Can someone please tell me how to get the Pubrules checker to
> understand that ReSpec has actually provided most of what it is
> complaining about?  Do I need to export the doc somehow?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >> --
> >> http://about.me/david_wood
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >


Received on Thursday, 4 July 2013 16:13:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:30 UTC