Re: Deprecating the old pubrules on Aug 1st, 2016

On 06/02/2016 11:08 AM, Shane McCarron wrote:
> Just to clarify something...
>
> I assume the policy for document format is that the PRIMARY format must
> be HTML5.  It remains the case that if a document has alternative
> versions in whatever format, those will continue to be permitted.  We
> often include PDF or EPub versions of Recommendations.

Correct. This change doesn't impact alternative versions.

>  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.

Philippe