Re: Abuse of the W3 Logo

From: Kynn Bartlett (
Date: Tue, Sep 28 1999

Message-Id: <>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:51:53 -0700
To: "Michael Gade" <>
From: Kynn Bartlett <>
Cc: <>
Subject: Re: Abuse of the W3 Logo

At 02:35 PM 9/28/1999 , Michael Gade wrote:
>I'm not a regular reader of this mailing list, but I still have a question. I applyed for a job today at a company called Genio, and after mailing my CV I went by their homepage ( <> ), and much to my joy all the pages where flagged as Valid HTML 4.0.

This URL is currently inaccessible; perhaps they pulled the site while
they fix it.  (Bad idea, in my opinion.)

>But the icon was not linked back to W3C. And this made me look at the code only to find it ugly ugly ugly UGLY. HTML 3.2 layout with the entire page inside a giant table, no doctype, no metatags, no nothing. But filled with VLINK, ALINK, BACKROUND and ALIGN tags.

Well, it can still be valid HTML 3.2 with no doctype, with a giant
table, with VLINK, with ALIGN, with no metatags, and with ugly code
and ugly page.

>My question is: What do you do about such abuse? I myself go to great lengths just to hold the standard, but this company just slapped on the logo as comercial value.
>(In case you wonder, I pulled back my application with a detailed explanation, including links to the HTML 4.0 spec's)

I don't think there's much commercial value (currently) to valid
HTML 4.0; at least it shows that they're _aware_ of the standard
and may live up to it sometime in the future.  It's entirely 
possible that at one time their site was designed as HTML 4.0
but then was given over to someone else to manage and maintain,
and they used an HTML editor that trashed the validity of the

Kynn Bartlett  <>         
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet
Catch the Web Accessibility Meme!