W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > September 2006

W3C Valid CSS Logo(s)

From: Woody Brown <andthynownself@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20060918142311.26181.qmail@web33612.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
To: www-validator-css@w3.org

At web-page 'http://www.w3.org/', under the heading, 'W3C A to Z', the link to the 'CSS Validator' = 'http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/'.

Whether on that validation page itself, or on the 'W3C CSS Validator Results' page, any questions regarding W3C CSS validation are linked to 'The W3C CSS Validator Team' eMail page, 'http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/Email'.

On this page it is stated that the first thing an individual ought do is consult, W3C CSS Validator Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).  Fine.

On that page--http://www.websitedev.de/css/validator-faq--the issue of W3C Valid CSS Logo(s) is addressed by the last FAQ, 'Where can I find the Valid CSS logo?'

In answer to this question four links are provided.  Two of these links yield a 'valid-css' image.

1) Why is there only one image?
2) Why--as there is with HTML validation--aren't there logos for valid css levels 1, 2, 2.1 or 3?
3) Why is there only an image (.gif or .png)? and no image-less css-comprised logo?

re, #3, there are several good reasons why a particular page may want to include a valid-css logo without having to use an image.  This would go a long-way toward conformance with WAI Guideline 1. 'Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content'. e.g., text-only pages.

The last of the four links on this page directs one to the 'W3C Logo and Icon Usage' page--http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/logo-usage-20000308.

On this page, W3C expressly forbids use of any other logo--or form of logo--than those displayed therein.  Regarding CSS, this directs individuals to the .gif & .png image files mentioned above.  Additionally, no mention is made regarding the various levels of valid css and no reference to a css-comprised version of the image logo.

However, the first of the four links on the W3C CSS Validator FAQ leads one to an archive of images.  Within this archieve there exists W3C valid style logos stipulating 'level 1' and 'level 2' CSS.  Additionally, there are logos which use a powder-blue back ground instead of the W3C standard icky-yellow.
4) If any other version of the standard W3C Valid CSS logo is expressly forbidden, then why is a direct link provided to other valid css logo versions?
5) If these alternative versions of the valid css logo are forbidden, then there is no acceptable reason for them to be made publically available by the W3C itself.
The following W3C resolutions would rectify these issues:
A) Update the CSS Validator to validate levels 1, 2 and 3 css.
B) Allow the official use of W3C Valid CSS logos identifying the level 1, 2 &/or 3 code validated.
C) In addition to images, provide css-comprised logos.
D) Official W3C validation logos ought be copyrighted, trademarked or registered.
re: 'C', css-comprised logos may also be provided for various HTML, XHTML & WAI validation logos.
Please note that the issues describe herein apply to a number of web-developers.  The absence of a W3C standardized set of validation logos which meet web-development needs amounts to tacit encouragement--by the W3C--for web-developers to ignore W3C conformance, compliance & continuity by providing their own variations of official logos.  This, in turn, undermines the validity and strength/weight of W3C standards.
Via any search-engine, one can find any number of unofficial variations on W3C official validation logos.  As long as web-developers have good reason to ignore W3C standards, they will...and use of invalid/unofficial logos will proliferate to the point where employing such validition logos--at all--will become more or less meaningless.
Enough said.
Woody Brown

'Treat Humanity, and Thyn Own Self, 
       Always as a Means 
             and Never as an Ends Only' 

Get your email and more, right on the  new Yahoo.com 
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2006 11:14:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:42 UTC