On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> wrote: > > > > 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 > > Oh - personally I would be happy with that change as I think Microdata is pretty broken. But no, what I am asking is if the W3C profile that we use for validating W3C publications restricts the checking to things that are actually approved by the W3C. W3C recommendations should not be using microdata - at least not in the primary format that we are checking as part of pub rules. I imagine there are lots of other things that are getting thrown into the WhatWG version of HTML that are also not included in HTML as Recommended by the W3C. We should not be permitting those in our formal publications either. -- Shane McCarron Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2016 16:32:38 UTC