- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 03:28:36 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22741 Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mike@w3.org --- Comment #1 from Michael[tm] Smith <mike@w3.org> --- (In reply to comment #0) > HTML+RDFa is a W3C Proposed Recommendation, and it is currently in use in a > number of specifications under development with the permission of the > publication folks. ReSpec automatically generates HTML+RDFa (or > XHTML+RDFa). It's imaginable that ReSpec could provide an option for generating RDFa Lite as well. > Unfortunately, the validator complains about RDFa in > documents, seemingly because it is enforcing the RDFa Lite restrictions on > the documents. This is causing some consternation in the W3C spec > development community. Whatever such consternation there might be, it should be weighed against the needs of the wider community of validator users. I don't think any of us would want the validator optimized for the needs of the W3C spec-development community to the possible detriment of the needs of the wider community. And I don't think at this point in the wider community of validator users there's significant consternation about RDFa Lite being the default. > There should be an option to validate using HTML+RDFa, not just HTML+RDFa > Lite. There is a such an option at http://validator.w3.org/nu -- which is the service that this bug was filed against (Product: Validator, Component: HTML5). > And this option should be the default, at least when checking from > 'pubrules' Yes, it could be made the default for W3C pubrules users without it needing to be made the default for all other users as well. > because RDFa Lite is inadequate for the semantic markup that is > being embedded in W3C specifications. I don't think there's yet any actual consensus in the W3C spec-development community about that being the case. I'd think before that statement was just accepted as true, there'd need to be a lot more discussion about it in the W3C spec-development community (e.g., on the spec-prod mailing list or somewhere). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 21 July 2013 03:28:37 UTC