W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > December 2012

Re: HTML5 rel=publisher?

From: Thomas Spear <speeddymon@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:51:45 -0600
Message-ID: <CAEAsNvSttgo1ydCjrCDg5-zVLjw6R7Tky492tggmAAoyMXdFvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Thank you for the detailed information!
On Dec 30, 2012 5:17 AM, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> 2012-12-30 2:00, Thomas Spear wrote:
>  I have an HTML5 site
>> I'm writing which I am linking to an accompanying Google+ page. One of
>> the recommendations for the site in terms of how it appears in search
>> engine results, was to use rel=publisher -- I am getting an error that
>> it is not a valid IRI, so I checked through the microformats wike.
> The error message is rather confusing: "Bad value publisher for attribute
> rel on element a: Not an absolute IRI. The string publisher is not a
> registered keyword or absolute URL." The idea behind this is that by HTML5
> drafts and WHATWG HTML Living Standard pages (it has not been disclosed
> which of these is what the validator tries to check against), a rel
> attribute value component must be a keyword from a mutable set of allowed
> keywords, but for some reason, the validator reflects the idea that it
> could also be an absolute URL (called "absolute IRI" first).
> So when the validator encounters a name there that it does not recognize,
> it tries to parse it as an absolute URL.
> The "microformats wiki" says: "Changes to this registry may not be
> reflected in validators in real time." This should be read as saying that
> the validator uses some version of the document, and there is no direct way
> of knowing which.
> The validator does not accept rel=publisher, despite its being in that
> document, simply because it uses some old version of it. As far as I can
> see, rel=publisher was added 2 October, 2012.
>  Unless I'm reading this wrong, rel=publisher was dropped for _html4
>> (html version four)_,
> No, it was never in HTML 4. On the other hand, HTML 4 specifications allow
> any keywords there; they only describe a set of "recognized" keywords (most
> of which have actually been ignored by most software), without specifying
> any particular allowed set:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-**html40/types.html#type-links<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links>
> The list does not contain rel=publisher, but that's irrelevant in
> validation, since validation against HTML 4 accepts any string as rel value.
>  however it appears to be in proposed status for
>> html5.
> It's in "proposed" status in the wiki page, yes. Anyone and his brother
> can propose anything there, and some people can move proposals to abandoned
> state.
>  Is there anything I can do to work around that so it validates
>> cleanly, without having to remove the rel=publisher bit?
> No, apart from waiting for the validator to catch or switching to HTML 4.
> Yucca
Received on Monday, 31 December 2012 02:52:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:59:31 UTC