W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > July 2001

Re: Shaming compaines into improving their HTML

From: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 23:02:56 +0200
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, "'www-validator@w3.org'" <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010723230938-r01010700-2658d9e0-0910-010c@192.168.1.6>
On 23.07.01 at 12:58, Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> wrote:

>At 9:34 PM +0200 2001/7/23, Terje Bless wrote:
>>Not really. The indexing is already pretty resource intensive -- though
>>probably not CPU bound -- so running it through SP is within limits of
>>sanity. Good luck trying to convince them though; cluefull as the Google
>>guys are, I sincerely doubt you'll be able to sell this to them... :-(
>
>I don't see the value add for their users, especially when you consider
>that most of them are NOT using HTML-specification-compliant web
>browsers.  So what is the value?   Why would the end user really
>care one way or another?

So lets shut down the Validator and fire the WAI members? :-)

I know you are trying to be pragmatic, but you've been staring too long
into the abyss here I think. There is value added in this -- both directly
and indirectly -- but there is a question of whether there is _enough_
value added to justify the costs.


>No reason for Google to do this; it's not a matter of clue, it's a matter
>of customer value.

Google does several things because they are the right thing to do rather
then that it's what will make them the most money. As I said, Google as a
whole is a pretty damn cluefull group of people; it's just that this
doesn't necessarily mean that they'll go for this particular idea after a
cost vs. benefit evaluation of the issue.
Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 17:10:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:59 GMT