- From: Ann Navarro <ann@webgeek.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 11:10:32 -0400
- 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 UTC