On 16/7/09 11:20, Ian Hickson wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009, Toby Inkster wrote:
Ian Hickson wrote:
Authors must not use elements, attributes, and attribute values that
are not permitted by this specification or other applicable
specifications.
-- http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#semantics-0
Which "other specifications" are "applicable"?
Pretty much any that claim to be and that the people affected agree are
applicable. If an RDFa specification said that text/html could have
arbitrary xmlns:* attributes, then the HTML5 specification would (by
virtue of the above-quoted sentence) defer to it and thus it would be
allowed. Similarly, Microsoft could write a spec and claim<marquee> is
valid, as well as<msword> and<excel>.
Of course, if a community doesn't acknowledge the authority of such a
spec, and they _do_ acknowledge the authority of the HTML5 spec, then it
would be (for them) as if that spec didn't exist. Similarly, there might
be a community that only acknowledges the HTML4 spec and doesn't consider
HTML5 to be relevant, in which case for them, HTML5 isn't relevant.
This is how specs work. :-)
How would you expect a validator for such a flexible format to work?
I just tried validator.nu HTML5 (experimental) on a document with
xmlns:*, and got "Error: Attribute xmlns:foaf not allowed here."
Should these errors be demoted to warnings? Or each community makes it's
own validator?
Dan
