This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Created attachment 1344 [details] Screenshot from Wiki The site is reporting: Bad value publisher for attribute rel on element link: The string publisher is not a registered keyword or absolute URL. A whitespace-separated list of link types listed as allowed on <link> in the HTML specification or listed as an allowed on <link> on the Microformats wiki without duplicate keywords in the list. You can register link types on the Microformats wiki yourself. The publisher attribute is listed on the microfomats wiki. I assume this just needs to be updated. Thanks.
Fixed and pushed to http://validator.w3.org/nu/ But FWIW, the entry for "publisher" in the wiki does not meet the current requirements in the HTML spec. The requirements are the there must be a link to an actual specification that defines what "publisher" means. But the link for "publisher" is to http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1708844 That's not a spec, it's just a simple how-to. All that said, I'm not super keen on the requirements in the spec. The real-world requirement should be that if some major service -- Google Plus, in the specific case of "publisher" -- has processing support for some particular rel value, then the makes it a de facto standard and we are wasting users' time to report it as an error. That's the rule I plan to follow from now on when considering what rel values the validator should treat as valid.