Re: FW: REV attribute on A and LINK elements

The validator now accepts full RDFa 1.1 markup in HTML documents.

Mark Rogers <mark.rogers@powermapper.com>, 2014-04-17 08:29 -0500:

> 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
> 

-- 
Michael[tm] Smith http://people.w3.org/mike