Rel="publisher" validation error in html5

[RoxBrock]

Using HTML5 I am getting a validation error on in my

HTML Validation error: Bad value publisher for attribute rel on element link: Not an absolute IRI. The string publisher is not a registered keyword or absolute URL.

This just started showing up on Tuesday in validation errors. Never showed up in the past. Has something changed?

[Andy.Drinkwater]

I wouldn't have done it quite like that. This is how it shows on one of my sites.

rel="publisher" href="https://plus.google.com/105905172195613766757/"/>

Does your authorship work when you test it in the structured data testing tool?

-Andy

[RoxBrock]

What you are doing is the same as what I am doing. You aren't using html5 (ie. the />). This is not structured data that I know of. Can you explain why I'd want to test it that way.

[Andy.Drinkwater]

You need to test the authorship / publisher is working on your site. This needs to be tied into your Google+ account.

You can access the tool here: http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets

When you enter your URL, it will tell you if it's working.

-Andy

[RoxBrock]

I found this on Stack Overflow and it works but I just want confirmation

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13710689/html-5-google-publisher-link-validation-error/22384444#22384444

that is why i have ?rel=publisher at the end of my google+ url.

[RoxBrock]

This page on google says to do it like this:

https://support.google.com/plus/answer/1713826?hl=en

but when I do it like that and when I do it like Stack Overflow says using the Rich Snippets tool I get this error:

"This is not a verified publisher markup."

I get the HTML Validation error when I do it as Google suggests, but not when I write it as Stack suggests.

[Andy.Drinkwater]

Getting the publisher markup to work is much more important than HTML validation. One is going to have a bearing on many factors, whereas the other will make no difference at all.

-Andy