W3Fools - Bad value for attribute name on element meta

Since early June 2011 the validator of validator.w3.org works different with respect to meta and link tags. Before june 2011 almost all attributes where possible as an attribute. For example www.helenahoeve.nl uses:

1. name="language" content="nl"
2. name="WGS84" content="51.347669, N, 3.67498, E"
3. name="ICBM" content="51.347669, 3.67498"
4. name="DC.title" content="Boerderijcamping de Helenahoeve"
5. name="geo.position" content="51.347669;3.67498"
6. rel="P3Pv1" href="http://www.helenahoeve.nl/p3p.xml"

The website of the Helenahoeve is coded as a HTML5 website and used to validate. However, when you validate this website now, you will get 6 Errors. Check it yourself at:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.helenahoeve.nl&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0

In my opinion this might be an error in the specification of HTML5 or an error in the experimental validator. When you take a look at the specs

• http://microformats.org/wiki/existing-rel-values#HTML5_link_type_extensions
• http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/links.html#linkTypes

you will find that the bold keywords in the numbered list above are not mentioned in these specs.

So I think it is time to make use of the last call for the HTML5 specification. I think that the lists mentioned in the specs above should be read as containing suggestions of normally used keywords instead of an exhaustive list of allowed keywords.

My suggestion is logged as Bug 12918. When you take a log at this bug in bug / issue tracking service of the W3C you will learn that I made a mistake. I thought that http://www.w3schools.com/ was part of the World Wide Web Consortium but that's not the case. The only thing I could say was that I was fooled. So the only thing I have to tell you now.

Don't get fooled, take a look at http://w3fools.com/

There they state that: (...) W3Schools.com is not affiliated with the W3C in any way. Members of the W3C have asked W3Schools to explicitly disavow any connection in the past, and they have refused to do so. (...)  W3Schools frequently publishes inaccurate or misleading content. We have collected several examples illustrating this problem below. (...)

BTW I have updated the website of the Helenahoeve, it is now validating again.