- From: David Oliver <david@doliver.co.uk>
- Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:03:07 +0100
- To: Shlomi Fish <shlomif@iglu.org.il>
- CC: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, public-rdfa@w3.org
I don't know why my first paragraph didn't appear in the end message. Here's what I originally sent: http://www.totalvalidator.com/validator/ValidatorForm has very recently added XHTML+RDFa to its service. Not entirely sure how it relates to this topic, but thought I'd mention it in case it's useful. Regards David Shlomi Fish wrote: > On Thursday 31 Dec 2009 13:21:38 David Oliver wrote: >> Not entirely sure how it relates to this topic, but thought I'd mention it >> in case it's useful. >> > > Mention what? > > Regards, > > Shlomi Fish > >> Regards >> David >> >> Toby Inkster wrote: >>> That said, DTD validation doesn't really work with RDFa, or indeed any >>> namespaced XML, because DTDs are namespace-unaware. (The W3C validator >>> hides a few namespace-related error messages, so you might not notice >>> how poorly DTD-based validation works for namespaced documents.) A Relax >>> NG schema might be of better practical use for authors wishing to check >>> XHTML+MathML+SVG+RDFa documents. >
Received on Saturday, 2 January 2010 14:04:46 UTC