W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator-css@w3.org > May 2008

Re: uri=referer

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 15:43:10 +0200
To: Jukka K.Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
Message-Id: <CE63F351-8761-49F4-A4E4-6786FF10A180@w3.org>
Cc: <www-validator-css@w3.org>, "Krzysztof Zelechowski" <program.spe@home.pl>


On 14-May-08, at 1:56 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> When uses as a link to something like
> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer (as required by the  
> W3C
> in their licence conditions

I haven't seen any such statement in the w3c licenses, nor the icons  
usage guidelines, nor anywhere - as far as I can tell. Here is, for  
the record, the text used in the CSS validator:
“To show your readers that you've taken the care to create an  
interoperable Web page, you **may** display this icon on any page that  
validates. Here is the XHTML you **could** use to add this icon to  
your Web page”
(emphasis mine)

> , though I don't think they have any legal
> force, at least where I live) adds a further level of confusion and
> absurdity.

There is no requirement, legal or otherwise, on whether or how to use  
these icons. There is a strong suggestion that the icon be used to  
revalidate the page where it is displayed, and this is desirable - for  
a lot of people -.

The only legal requirement/policy at this point is "do not make w3c  
logos if you are not w3c". This is due to trademark concerns, as  
covered by international law - and we are looking at relaxing the  
constraints so as to offer more choice in size, color, etc.

> It is wise to use "W3C CSS Validator", but it is not wise to pollute
> one's pages with "Valid CSS" icons.

Your opinion on the icons are here, stated, and archived. Many times.  
Everyone respects your opinion. Let us respect the choice of those who  
decide to use the icons?

> CSS 1 and CSS 2 are W3C recommendations, though not recommended by the
> W3C; CSS 2.1 is labelled as not citeable except as work in progress;  
> and
> CSS 3 is a collection of mostly dated drafts of sketches. So the
> situation is inherently unstable.

There has been a lot of work to make sure that CSS2.1 contains only  
features that have been properly implemented. That was a long process,  
and when CSS2.1 reaches the Recommendation status, this admittedly  
annoying state of things will be moot.

>  let's not lure ourselves into thinking that CSS 2.1 is stable

Not quite: “This is a W3C Candidate Recommendation, which means the  
specification has been widely reviewed and W3C recommends that it be  
implemented.” -- http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/#status

CSS2.1 is reaching maturity. People are encouraged to use CSS2.1, and  
to help with the CSS test suite effort if they want it to reach  
Recommendation status faster.
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/

Thank you.
-- 
olivier
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 13:43:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 27 June 2012 00:14:20 GMT