- From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 11:20:18 -0400
- To: Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, Denis Ah-Kang <denis@w3.org>
- Cc: Spec-prod <spec-prod@w3.org>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Marcos Caceres <marcos@marcosc.com>, Antonio Olmo Titos <antonio@w3.org>, Ted Guild <ted@w3.org>
On 06/02/2016 11:08 AM, Shane McCarron wrote: > Just to clarify something... > > I assume the policy for document format is that the PRIMARY format must > be HTML5. It remains the case that if a document has alternative > versions in whatever format, those will continue to be permitted. We > often include PDF or EPub versions of Recommendations. Correct. This change doesn't impact alternative versions. > Moreover, if we > update the RDFa family of Recommendations again, we would of course > include a version of XHTML+RDFa that is encoded in XHTML+RDFa. > > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa/ The main bottleneck/limitation for us is the validation. If you get your primary document to validate, then you don't have to worry. If you don't get it to validate, then it's a different story and we'd need to look at the specifics. It might be that we could allow the exception and/or conclude that the validator needs an upgrade. We refrain as much as possible from granting exceptions because otherwise we might as well give up on the rule, which would trigger a set of consequences. Philippe
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2016 15:20:21 UTC