- From: Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 17:47:07 -0500
- To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.com>
- Cc: "spec-prod@w3.org Prod" <spec-prod@w3.org>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, shane@aptest.com, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com>
- Message-ID: <CAOk_reGYj5-w+aTmQeDL7VUwhubpXaFTDFmKK3-UXdo2488DEw@mail.gmail.com>
I don't want to work around rel and about though. I really don't. On Jul 3, 2013 5:39 PM, "Gregg Kellogg" <gregg@greggkellogg.com> wrote: > > Gregg Kellogg > gregg@greggkellogg.net > > On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com> wrote: > > Yes. The validation is fine. However, the default of RDFa Lite 1.1 means > that these documents will fail unless you select the appropriate dialect. > RDFa Lite 1.1 is too limited for the metadata that we are generating. > > > Specifically, we use @list to ensure that authors and editors are retained > in proper order. Other things could be worked around, but not this ordering. > > Gregg > > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Shane McCarron <ahby@aptest.com> wrote: >> >>> The validator accepts RDFa as far as I know. Honestly I had not tested >>> with HTML5 yet. I will do that soon. I was still getting the tests to >>> exercise all the various combinations of RDF. >>> >> >> From my recent testing, HTML5 + RDFa validates pretty well on >> http://validator.w3.org/nu/, and the folks on the validator mailing are >> pretty helpful and responsive when there is a bug. >> >> Steph. >> >> >>> >>> As to being able to turn it off... I appreciate your desire to have it >>> on all the time and not provide a mechanism to disable it, but I don't want >>> to piss anyone off. Easy enough to make it mandatory at some point in the >>> future. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 03/07/2013 17:35 , Shane McCarron wrote: >>>> >>>>> I note that somewhere along the line ReSpec was modified to generate >>>>> microformat compatible classes for things like authors. That's fine, >>>>> and it is not *inconsistent* with RDFa. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It was definitely not meant to be :) >>>> >>>> >>>> However, the way it is written >>>>> you get one or the other. >>>>> >>>> >>>> That's just an artefact of us being banned from shipping RDFa by >>>> default because the validator rejected HTML+RDFa. If it were up to me, we'd >>>> always ship microformats, and RDFa, and microdata. >>>> >>>> >>>> If you disable RDFa you STILL get microformats (since that is the >>>>> default right now). >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think the validator accepts RDFa now, right? If so, I don't see the >>>> point in having a way to disable it. ReSpec has the metadata, it should be >>>> produced for all sorts of consumers without getting into politics. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ - @robinberjon >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Shane P. McCarron >>> Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Steph. > > > > > -- > Shane P. McCarron > Managing Director, Applied Testing and Technology, Inc. > > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2013 22:47:34 UTC