On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> wrote: > > > Moreover, if we >> update the RDFa family of Recommendations again, we would of course >> include a version of XHTML+RDFa that is encoded in XHTML+RDFa. >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml-rdfa/ >> > > The main bottleneck/limitation for us is the validation. If you get your > primary document to validate, then you don't have to worry. If you don't > get it to validate, then it's a different story and we'd need to look at > the specifics. It might be that we could allow the exception and/or > conclude that the validator needs an upgrade. We refrain as much as > possible from granting exceptions because otherwise we might as well give > up on the rule, which would trigger a set of consequences. > > Of course. I do have a concern about HTML5 extension specifications as well as with bits of HTML5 that are in WhatWG specs but NOT in W3C specs. Does the validator have a mode that only permits W3C-approved HTML5? Shane McCarron Projects Manager, Spec-Ops
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2016 15:23:35 UTC