- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 16:49:52 +0000
- To: www-validator-cvs@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=22741 Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |msporny@digitalbazaar.com --- Comment #4 from Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> --- Additionally, I keep getting comments from people that claim that the W3C Validator is broken because their RDFa markup doesn't validate. In many cases, their markup is valid, but since the validator uses RDFa Lite 1.1 by default, it makes it seem like their markup is broken when it isn't. There are a few solutions that I can think of to this problem: Make RDFa 1.1 the default, and if the document validates as RDFa 1.1, put a button on the page that states that they can click to also validate the document as RDFa 1.1 Lite. Keep RDFa Lite 1.1 as the default, but if the validation fails, try RDFa 1.1 and if it succeeds, make a note of it passing as RDFa 1.1. Maybe say that the document failed as RDFa Lite 1.1, but passes as regular RDFa 1.1 and show the normal success page. I'm starting to think that this as a pretty bad usability issue with the validator. Putting aside the computing resources necessary to run the validator multiple times, given the target audience, the validator should just "do the right thing" in these instances where there is a clear algorithm for checking to see if the document is valid or not. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 21 July 2013 16:49:53 UTC