Install.rdf Fails AMO General Test But Passes W3C Validation Service

Add-ons addons.mozilla.org
#1

Our install.rdf (contents below) fails the AMO General Test (error below), but passes the W3C Validation Service recommended by AMO in the error message. Are we missing something obvious?

Thank you for help.

AMO Error:

Could not parse install.rdf.
Error: The RDF parser was unable to parse the install.rdf file included with this add-on.
Try validating your RDF with the W3 validator: http://www.w3.org/RDF/Validator/.
install.rdf:10

install.rdf contents:

<?xml version="1.0"?> <RDF xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:em="http://www.mozilla.org/2004/em-rdf#"> <Description> <em:id>tidynetwork@tidynetwork.com</em:id> <em:name>TidyNetwork</em:name> <em:version>1.0</em:version> <em:type>2</em:type> <em:iconURL>chrome://TidyNetwork/skin/32x32.png</em:iconURL> <em:creator>TidyNetwork</em:creator> <em:description>TidyNetwork can save you time and money by highlighting exclusive deals while you browse the Internet. There are no membership fees or gotchas—just great savings from TidyNetwork advertisers.</em:description> <em:targetApplication> <Description> <em:id>{ec8030f7-c20a-464f-9b0e-13a3a9e97384}</em:id> <em:minVersion>2.0</em:minVersion> <em:maxVersion>45.*</em:maxVersion> </Description> </em:targetApplication> </Description> </RDF>

#2

Mozilla sadly relies on an old version of RDF, which is incompatible with the current W3C standards (and the test suites).

Looking at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/Install_Manifests?redirectlocale=en-US&redirectslug=install.rdf#Layout, you top-level description lacks an about=“urn:mozilla:install-manifest”, didn’t check further.

PS: “Fixing” that makes the validator grumpy, Error: {W102} unqualified use of rdf:about is deprecated.[Line = 3, Column = 51].

Probably the AMO folks should create their own validator at this point.

And because you’d ask: As I’m still the module owner of RDF, we’re determined to not update RDF support. The changes required to do so are about the same as the changes to remove support completely, and that’s what we’d go for.

1 Like
#3

A belated thank you, Pike.

Might we suggest updating the error message text so that developers are not mislead by it? :blush:

We also discovered a workaround for our case to set minVersion to 40.*.