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

Re: OK to display W3C logo based on 3'rd party validator?

From: Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:10:32 -0400
Message-Id: <4.1.19990922110427.0261d360@mail.webgeek.com>
To: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>
Cc: Uriel Wittenberg <uw@urielw.com>, www-validator@w3.org
At 10:27 AM 9/22/99 -0400, Liam Quinn wrote:

>Or it might be better than the W3C version. 

As "owner" of that service you have a vested interest in promoting your
service. No one is attempting to deny you that. 

However as a *consumer*, especially consumers who don't understand the
techniques involved in running a validator, it's is a very reasonable
question to pose: is this one as good as the "official" one, and if it
tells me I've passed, can it tell me I've also passed according to the W3C? 

I'm not interested in debating whether your produce is "as good" or
"better" -- that's not the issue. 

The validator icon says W3C on it. To many people, that carries the weight
of "the W3C says I've passed". If that correspondence is important to the
page author, they'll use the W3C validator. If it's not, they'll use
whichever validator they choose -- most often without having the knowledge
to differientiate the strengths and weaknesses (and even validity) of those
validators. 

So if that W3C "seal" means anything, use W3C. If you don't care -- do what
you wish. 

Ann
---

Author of Effective Web Design: Master the Essentials
Coming in September --- Mastering XML

Founder, WebGeek Communications            http://www.webgeek.com
Vice President-Finance, HTML Writers Guild http://www.hwg.org
Director, HWG Online Education             http://www.hwg.org/services/classes
Received on Wednesday, 22 September 1999 11:13:09 GMT

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