- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 15:15:52 +0900
- To: "Hausenblas, Michael" <michael.hausenblas@joanneum.at>, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Shane McCarron <shane@aptest.com>, W3C RDFa task force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, www-validator Community <www-validator@w3.org>
Hi all, On Aug 8, 2007, at 23:41 , Hausenblas, Michael wrote: > So, to clarify this: It is NOT the RDFa TF that has 'anything' > to do with this validation service [1]. The QA WG develops and > maintains > it [2]; now it seems they adopted Shanes's DTD [3]. > > All credits (and suggestions) should therefore go to 'www- > validator@w3.org' > (I cc'ed them already in this mail). To be entirely fair, kudos go to Shane and the TF for good coordination work, for informing the validator community (not the QA WG, BTW, as that working group doesn't exist any more) of that new DTD and helping us patch the validator for a couple of issues annoying when validating XHTML+RDFa. Niklas Wrote: >> xml:base doesn't seem to work either. > [...] >> I also miss an "XHTML plus RDFa" entry in the "Document Type" select >> of "More Options". Good point. Unfortunately we've just released a couple of versions of the validator and there's no clear timeline as to when the next release should be, but if the RDFa TF thinks it'd be a good thing, we can add it in CVS for now, and in the next release. >> Btw, should lang be allowed (along with xml:lang)? The validator >> doesn't support it for XHTML 1.1 (but for e.g. XHTML 1.0 Strict). As far as I can tell, no: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/changes.html#a_changes cheers, -- olivier
Received on Thursday, 9 August 2007 06:15:14 UTC