- From: Mark Rogers <mark.rogers@powermapper.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:29:52 -0500
- To: "www-validator@w3.org" <www-validator@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <1F68EA0E0CBFBE44A9A64274E1AC01A1218F4C4AAC@DFW1MBX23.mex07a.mlsrvr.com>
I believe the validator used to flag using the REV attribute on A and LINK elements as obsolete, but no longer does this. The REV attribute is still marked as non-conforming in the HTML5 CR and nightly specs. The language looks the same in all the versions: "11.2 Non-conforming features" "The following attributes are obsolete (though the elements are still part of the language), and must not be used by authors: "rev on a elements" "rev on link elements" http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/CR/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/CR-html5-20140204/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features http://www.w3.org/html/wg/drafts/html/master/obsolete.html#non-conforming-features Looking into this a bit deeper, I think there might be a mismatch between the HTML5 CR and the RFDa recommendation (which says "RDFa supports the use of @rel and @rev on any element.") http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rdfa-core-20130822/#examples http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/REC-rdfa-core-20130822/#A-rev There are also 4 tests in the conformance checker test suite that use the REV attribute, with the naming indicating validators should not flag a conformance error: html-rdfa/0006-isvalid.html html-rdfa/0007-isvalid.html html-rdfa/0009-isvalid.html html-rdfa/0010-isvalid.html So, what's the correct behaviour - is this conforming or non-conforming? Best Regards Mark Mark Rogers - mark.rogers@powermapper.com<mailto:mark.rogers@powermapper.com> PowerMapper Software Ltd - www.powermapper.com<http://www.powermapper.com> Registered in Scotland No 362274 Quartermile 2 Edinburgh EH3 9GL
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2014 13:28:07 UTC