- From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:28:47 -0500
- To: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Cc: www-validator@w3.org
On 24-Nov-08, at 8:32 AM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote: > > Hello www-validator, > > I tried to check the validation of the new XHTML version 'XHTML+RDFa > 1.0' > by using the original example from the recommendation: > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#docconf If I remember correctly, the specification says that if you want to validate, using the doctype is recommended. And indeed, http://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#a_deployment > Is it possible, that the validator can identify the version > automatically with the version attribute to get results > better fitting to the recommendation? In theory yes. That's actually the way we do for SVG 1.0 and 1.1. I don't get the impression that the XHTML WG meant to have RDFa in XHTML validated without a doctype, but that notwithstanding, the major barrier to it is a matter of a small-ish patch in the validator. Would you like to add this as a feature request in bugzilla? http://validator.w3.org/feedback.html#bugreport > A similar problem may occur soon as SVG tiny 1.2 > becomes a recommendation. SVG 1.2 is a somewhat different question. Unlike HTML it really doesn't need a doctype, and indeed the 1.2 version doesn't have a DTD at all. HTH, -- olivier
Received on Monday, 24 November 2008 19:28:56 UTC