- From: Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 17:04:28 -0500
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- CC: RDFa WG <public-rdfa-wg@w3.org>
You are right about why it works. As to catalog... we can add it anytime we want. Since it is pretty preliminary I would wait a while. And... duh. I wouldn't have pushed something that didn't validate! "Manu Sporny" <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: >On 07/05/2010 03:39 PM, Shane McCarron wrote: >> There is an editor's draft at >> http://www.w3.org/2010/02/rdfa/drafts/2010/ED-rdfa-core-20100705 > >So, I passed this through the W3C validator and it passed! > >http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2010%2F02%2Frdfa%2Fdrafts%2F2010%2FED-rdfa-core-20100705%2F > >I wasn't expecting that to work... does it use the DTD that is specified >at the top of the document? Is that why it worked? > >It also says that the DTD isn't a part of W3C's catalog - I guess it >would only become part of W3C's catalog when the HTML5+RDFa spec goes to >REC? > >In any case, seeing an HTML4.01 + RDFa 1.1 document validate is pretty >cool. Great job, Shane! > >-- manu > >-- >Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny) >President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. >blog: Myth Busting Web Stacks - PHP is Faster Than You Think >http://blog.digitalbazaar.com/2010/06/12/myth-busting-php/2/ -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Received on Monday, 5 July 2010 22:05:00 UTC