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

From: Ann Navarro (ann@webgeek.com)
Date: Wed, Sep 22 1999


Message-Id: <4.1.19990922124055.0262a780@mail.webgeek.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:41:57 -0400
To: Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>, Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
From: Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>
Cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Subject: Re: OK to display W3C logo based on 3'rd party validator?

At 05:22 PM 9/22/99 +0100, Lloyd Wood wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Sep 1999, Terje Bless wrote:
>
>> The issue is what the badge signifies. Compliance with a certain standard
>> or the use of a specific bit of software. The presense of the W3C logo on
>> the badge is incidental.
>
>and doesn't signify e.g. payment of W3C membership fees?

What? No, we're talking about the HTML 4.0 valid icon. 

Going back to a prevous message, I find the assertion that the W3C
validator is dated, badly in need of an overhaul, and other statements to
be quite surprising. Yes, Gerald is busy, but it doesn't make the work
faulty, nor necessarily incomplete. Indeed, they've kept up with XHTML 1.0,
HTML 4.01, and much more. 

Ann
---

Author of Effective Web Design: Master the Essentials
Coming in September --- Mastering XML

Founder, WebGeek Communications            http://www.webgeek.com
Vice President-Finance, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org
Director, HWG Online Education             http://www.hwg.org/services/classes