Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, 2016-06-02 10:50 -0500: > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote: > > > Shane McCarron <shane@spec-ops.io>, 2016-06-02 10:22 -0500: > > > Archived-At: < > > http://www.w3.org/mid/CAJdbnOC4PycuM4LJQVMqKHVNh4gJ0sFhGs1JuouXmP3Y5UXhag@mail.gmail.com > > > > > > ... > > > Does the validator have a mode that only permits W3C-approved HTML5? > > > > The https://validator.w3.org/nu/ checker implements W3C-conforming checks > > in any cases where the W3C HTML fork states requirements that differ from > > the upstream HTML spec > > > > > Good to know. What about "extensions" that W3C has approved (e.g., > longdesc) The W3C HTML checker supports longdesc > or things in the WhatWG version that are not in the W3C version > (e.g., microdata)? schema.org supports (and even promotes) the use of microdata, and many authors and orgs are using it producively. I hope you’re not suggesting it would be a good idea to start having the W3C HTML checker flag errors in the millions of schema.org-conforming documents containing microdata that authors have created based on the schema.org guidelines —Mike -- Michael[tm] Smith https://people.w3.org/mike
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2016 15:57:44 UTC