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

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Philippe Le Hegaret <[email protected]> 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