No good reason that I can imagine, probably just legacy (ie, leftover from before there was an XHTML+RDFa doctype). Don't open a bug, just fix it :).
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Jonathan Palecek <[email protected]> wrote: > Ignoring the attribute errors, the deeds should be well-formed now. > > The template file common to most of the deeds and the one common to > the public domain tool use different doctypes from one another. In > the later case, the doctype is xhtml+rdfa. I've opened up a new bug > ticket for this - code.creativecommons.org/issues/issue1010 > > If the doctype xhtml+rdfa was used, then it should be possible to have > no validation issues what so ever. Would there be a good reason not > to do this? > _______________________________________________ > cc-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel _______________________________________________ cc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-devel
