On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Marcus (OOo) <marcus.m...@wtnet.de> wrote:
> Am 10/14/2012 04:10 PM, schrieb Rob Weir:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.m...@wtnet.de>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 10/10/2012 09:08 AM, schrieb Andrea Pescetti:
>>>
>>>> On 09/10/2012 Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.openoffice.org/test/ ...
>>>>> I am invoking *lazy consensus* on these changes and put this in place
>>>>> sometime on Sat, PDT -- say 15:30, unless there are objections.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's nice indeed. I only see the "Valid XHTML" icon positioned a bit too
>>>> high maybe... Is it wanted?
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~pescetti/tmp/ooo-www-test.png
>>>>
>>>> And, by the way, clicking on it reveals that there are a couple of
>>>> markup fixes to apply, but I don't know if those are due to the CMS or
>>>> to specific markup of the page.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Currenty it's 1 warning and 1 error. The warning comes because the
>>> validator
>>> uses a new HTML 5 checker which is still in Beta status. IMHO it's
>>> irrelevant.
>>>
>>> The error is due to the "PUBLISHER" tag in the link reference (line 8).
>>>
>>> Due to the following webpage "PUBLISHER" is no valid HTML style. However
>>> I
>>> wouldn't change it as it seems to be used for Google index referencing:
>>>
>>
>> If you make it lower case "publisher" it should be OK.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>>
>>> http://www.thoughtsfromgeeks.com/resources/2793-Rel-publisher-standard-HTML-markup-or.aspx
>>>
>>> Marcus
>
>
> I've made the change but this doesn't make a difference, see:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/types.html#type-links
>

Look at the detailed error message here:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3a%2f%2fwww.openoffice.org%2ftest%2f

It looks like the W3C Validator looks at more than the values in the
HTML specification.  They also look at the Microformats Wiki:

http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions

"publisher" is listed there.

Of course, that is what the error message says.  I have no idea if the
Validator actually works that way ;-)

-Rob


> Marcus

Reply via email to