Re: 'XHTML + RDFa 1.0' validation?

David Dorward:
> Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote:
> > Because it has a version attribute, it is possible to identify the
> > version. And the recommendation does not mention in 4.1 that
> > a doctype declaration is required.
>
> The validator at http://validator.w3.org/ is a DTD validator. If you
> want to use some other form of validation, then you will need to use a
> different validator.


As far as I understand the recommendation for 'XHTML + RDFa 1.0'
this version provides a DTD, which can be used by the validator:
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#a_xhtmlrdfa_dtd

And I think, it should be much simpler to decide by the version
attribute, which DTD to chose, as to have no DTD at all , as 
for example for HTML5 the validator obviously has an 
experimental support for ;o)
HTML5 indicates the related string '<!DOCTYPE HTML>' 
as 'mostly useless', what is obviously true, because it provides 
no version indication.
This indicates, that it is already a different validator, at least
for HTML5, what is only a draft (with possible daily changes in the
editor's version) and no W3C recommendation.
Therefore I cannot see the practical problem to use a known
DTD for documents with a defined version indication (for a
W3C recommendation).

Olaf

Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 17:00:28 UTC