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: Wed, 06 Oct 1999 10:02:45 -0400
Message-ID: <37FB5685.8E7312F8@urielw.com>
To: Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@w3.org>
CC: Terje Bless <link@tss.no>, W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 01:36:29PM -0400, Uriel Wittenberg wrote:
> > 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.
> That's pretty much what I had in mind when I wrote [1]:
>     [...] The validator's current output for a valid page says
>     "you may display this icon on any page that validates."
>     (to be more precise, it should probably end with
>     "...as this level of HTML.")
>     If you use some other validation process (like another site that
>     does true SGML validation, an HTML compliant editor, or some
>     other SGML tool), I don't see why you can't display the W3C
>     icons, since you can be fairly sure that W3C's validator will
>     just tell you the same thing.

The problem here I think is that you feel that those "you may display..."
instructions are targetted to the relatively narrow circle of people who
know what all these things mean ("true SGML validation, an HTML compliant
editor, or some other SGML tool").

I barely know what SGML stands for, much less what it represents. I'm a
simple web author. It's people like me -- the millions of non-specialists
producing many of the pages that make up the web -- who should be
encouraged to adhere to standards.

I have no way of knowing if Liam's or any other validator is correct. If
the W3C site tells people like me they can use any validator, you'll have
even well-intentioned people, who WANT to adhere to the standard,
publishing non-standard HTML. They'll stumble across Joe Blow's validator
somewhere -- an ingenious tool that makes sure the number of <'s in the
document is EXACTLY equal to the number of  >'s -- and they'll stick your
logo on faulty pages ... with your approval.

I would suggest: "you may display the W3C icon on any page approved by
the W3C validator." Sophisticated, experienced people, of course, would
understand that they don't have to religiously validate at your site each
time any change is made. It's an assertion about the author's
well-founded belief that it _would_ validate.

If it's worth the trouble to you (and again, this can be set up as
something that pays for itself), you could change the above to: "you may
display the W3C icon on any page approved either by the W3C's own
validator, or by any of the W3C-endorsed validators listed below."

Received on Wednesday, 6 October 1999 10:00:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:25 UTC