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

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Michael[tm] Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> > or things in the WhatWG version that are not in the W3C version
> > (e.g., microdata)?
>
> schema.org supports (and even promotes) the use of microdata, and many
> authors and orgs are using it producively. I hope you’re not suggesting it
> would be a good idea to start having the W3C HTML checker flag errors in
> the millions of schema.org-conforming documents containing microdata that
> authors have created based on the schema.org guidelines
>
>
Oh - personally I would be happy with that change as I think Microdata is
pretty broken.  But no, what I am asking is if the W3C profile that we use
for validating W3C publications restricts the checking to things that are
actually approved by the W3C.  W3C recommendations should not be using
microdata - at least not in the primary format that we are checking as part
of pub rules.  I imagine there are lots of other things that are getting
thrown into the WhatWG version of HTML that are also not included in HTML
as Recommended by the W3C.  We should not be permitting those in our formal
publications either.

-- 
Shane McCarron
Projects Manager, Spec-Ops