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: <199909221727.TAA12446@vals.intramed.rito.no>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 19:23:15 +0200
From: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
To: Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>
cc: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>, Uriel Wittenberg <uw@urielw.com>, www-validator@w3.org
Subject: Re: OK to display W3C logo based on 3'rd party validator?

On 22.09.99 at 12:31, Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com> wrote:

>At 06:22 PM 9/22/99 +0200, Terje Bless wrote:
>>On 22.09.99 at 11:45, Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Exactly! If you pass one you should pass the other.
>>>>Anything else is a bug!
>>>
>>>Right, but the layperson has no way of judging that. 
>>
>>Oh? They just use the same badges; that should be clear enough. :-)
>
>No, the point is that the end user has no way of knowing how competent a
>third part is. There's a reasonable expectation of quality from the W3C --
>not necessarily "Joe Validator Writer"

The presense of a badge on a page asserts that the page is conformant with
the standard indicated on the badge. For HTML 4.0 (which is a W3C standard)
the badge will indicate "W3C HTML 4.0"; for HotJava HTML (whose DTD was
made by the HAl team) it will indicate "HAL HotJava". The badge asserts
conformance with a particular standard and *not* which tool was used to
ascertain the validity.

If you don't trust "Joe Validator Writer" then don't use his validator. If
you do trust the W3C Validator then use that. If you don't trust the W3C
Validator (maybe you have a HTML file in UTF-8) then use another.


>(Note nothing in that comment places any value judgement on Liam's work)

Duely noted.

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

                                             -link