W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > October 1999

Re: W3C supposed to have something to do with STANDARDS

From: Uriel Wittenberg <uw@urielw.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 13:36:29 -0400
Message-ID: <37F8E59D.27E40FF5@urielw.com>
To: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>
CC: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Terje Bless wrote:

> On 29.09.99 at 06:36, Uriel Wittenberg <uw@urielw.com> wrote:
>
> >The HTML standards body should not be approving HTML that's been run
> >through any arbitrary validator.
>
> They aren't! If /you/ use the badge on a page then /you/ are asserting
> compliance with the relevant DTD (which, for HTML 4.0, happens to come from
> the W3C). What it is that makes you think you are justified in your
> assertion is largely irrelevant. The W3C makes no such assertion.

Where do you get this information? The distinct impression given by the W3C
site is that use of the logo reflects _their_ approval.

The definition of what's approvable is not made clear by the site. (I haven't
made a research project out of this.) But I believe you're not correct -- I
think it's more than adherence to the DTD, since e.g. !DOCTYPE is required.
(Correct me if I'm mistaken.)

> If you want the W3C to give absolute assurances as to the validity of a
> page,

Please. Whoever said such a thing? This is a caricature of my position.

> >If it does we'll be stuck forever with the current anarchic situation:
> >massive waste of human industry as web authors worldwide find it's not
> >adequate to learn the rules, they also have to test repeatedly under a
> >range of browsers.
>
> This is hardly the W3C's fault (though Tim has to take some of the blame
> for the lousy specs we all started with ;D). The only way to do anything
> about this is to put your money where your mouth is. Do not hire a web
> design shop that do not produce valid HTML. Do not produce anything but
> valid HTML even if it means the Fortune 500 company that wants them will go
> to a different web design shop.

Really, appealing to altruism and asking people to forgo money is not the way
to promote standards.

> >The W3C logo should only be permitted -- and is only permitted, given a
> >sensible reading of the site -- after W3C-endorsed validation.
>
> Well, the "W3C" has spoken on this so I guess there isn't much point in you
> telling them that they are wrong, is there?

I think there's been some mistake and some clarification or discussion is still
needed -- for the sake of our common objective of promoting standards.

> Please have the common courtesy to subscribe to the lists you post to!

For you, Terje, I've resubscribed (for a while).

> I understand your point, but I'm not entirely clear on what you want done
> about it.
>
> Do you want the W3C to refuse the use of the badges to anyone who hasn't
> passed the W3C Validator, regardless of the page's validity? That seems
> counter-productive to me. You'll only limit the amount of validated web
> pages that way; not improve it.

I think it'd be reasonable to say the badge is permitted if the author, based
on reasonable experience, is confident it *would* pass the W3C Validator.

> Do you want the W3C to maintain a list of "approved" validators? That would
> be a bit much to ask, IMO, as the work involved would be significant.

I don't agree. They're not obligated to evaluate each applicant. If all the
experts on this list feel WDG's ok then based on that W3C could list the WDG
service on its webpage.

If the W3C wants to get into it, they could set up a service that pays for
itself whereby there's a fee and a formal agreement.

--
http://www.urielw.com/
Received on Monday, 4 October 1999 13:40:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:52 GMT