RE: Abuse of the W3 Logo

From: B. Szyszka (bart@gigabee.com)
Date: Tue, Sep 28 1999


From: "B. Szyszka" <bart@gigabee.com>
To: "Michael Gade" <michael@mgade.dk>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, <www-validator@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 20:14:05 -0400
Message-ID: <NDBBJGHHILFHFKNMOGJICEAGCLAA.bart@gigabee.com>
Subject: RE: Abuse of the W3 Logo

> My point was NOT if the document was "correct", but that it claimed to be
> HTML 4.0.
> If this kind of abuse is allowed, then people will loose the confidence they
> should have that W3 can handle the HTML specs.
If the document didn't have a doctype, how did you know most of it wasn't
written in HTML 4.x Transitional, though? Not much difference between that
and HTML 3.2. Either way, if the document doesn't validate against the
doctype that it should have, then they're not being very honest.

-- 
Bart Szyszka  bart@gigabee.com  ICQ:4982727
B Grafyx  http://www.bgrafyx.com
L.J.R. Engineering  http://www.ljreng.com
PHP Interest Group  http://www.gigabee.com/pig/