Re: OK to display W3C logo based on 3'rd party validator?

From: Terje Bless (link@tss.no)
Date: Wed, Sep 22 1999


Message-Id: <199909221625.SAA19385@vals.intramed.rito.no>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 18:32:14 +0200
From: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
To: Uriel Wittenberg <uw@urielw.com>
cc: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>, Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>, www-validator@w3.org
Subject: Re: OK to display W3C logo based on 3'rd party validator?

On 22.09.99 at 12:03, Uriel Wittenberg <uw@urielw.com> wrote:

>Terje Bless wrote:
>
>>And since Liam is too modest to say it himself: the WDG Validator _is_
>>better then the W3C one! Fairly significantly too.
>
>Then why don't Liam and W3C do a trade -- the W3C site gets his validator,
>and he gets credited there.

That's actually a very good question. I'm not sure why the WDG decided to
implement their own Validator instead of using the W3C one. If they needed
new features they could have submitted patches (even if Gerald is slow to
pick up on them ;D).

Possibly because the W3C validator is showing it's age; it's badly in need
of modernization (allthough the recent work by Maldwyn Morris helped
tremendously). When what is really needed is to throw away all the old
stuff and reimplement it from scratch; why not just start with a clean
slate and make your own? I know I did that once.

Want to comment on this Liam?

-- 
*** I just switched to a new email client.
*** If you see any format problems in this message, yell. Loudly! :-)

                                             -link