W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > January 2002

Re: "valid [X]HTML x.x!" icons are Evil

From: Ushakov, Sergey N <ushakov@int.com.ru>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:01:51 +0300
Message-ID: <007201c1aa25$28a999c0$0101a8c0@int.com.ru>
To: "W3C Validator" <www-validator@w3.org>
I can suggest that the recommended badge label sounds as "Valid [X]HTML x.x!
(as of 2002, Jan NN)".

Regards,
Sergey Ushakov

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Ralston" <qralston+ml.www-validator@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: "Nick Kew" <nick@webthing.com>
Cc: "www-validator" <www-validator@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:29 PM
Subject: Re: "valid [X]HTML x.x!" icons are Evil


> [My apologies for the looooong delay before getting back to this...]
>
> Nick, I don't have a problem with the badges you describe, provided
> that they don't make validity assertions about the pages they're
> placed on.  (E.g., "click here to validate this page", not "this page
> is valid".)
>
> My point was simply that it's a horrible idea for the W3C validator to
> encourage web authors to slap "this page is valid!"  badges on their
> web pages, when the W3C *knows* that the definition of "valid" may
> change.  This is a terrific betrayal of trust, and the eventual
> backlash will be aimed not specifically at "this page is valid!"
> badges, but at the concept of validation in general.
>
> --
> James Ralston, Information Technology
> Software Engineering Institute
> Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
>
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Nick Kew wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, James Ralston wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Nick Kew wrote:
> > > > Isn't the purpose of the icon to propagate the notion that
> > > > validation, or more generally standards-compliance, is a Good
> > > > Thing?
> > >
> > > Yes, and it's a noble goal, but asking web authors to propagate
> > > that notion by *explicitly advertising their pages as being valid*
> > > is a horrible injustice, when the W3C darn well *knows* that a
> > > future change of theirs might invalidate countless of pages with
> > > the "valid [X]HTML x.x!" icons on them.
> >
> > That kind-of implies a rather high degree of self-awareness on the
> > part of W3C, which I suspect (though I am of course open to
> > correction) comes only in the wake of this months discussion.
> >
> > > I'd really like to see someone from the W3C comment on my original
> > > "'valid [X]HTML x.x!' icons are Evil" post.  (Perhaps it's being
> > > discussed, but from my point of view, all I hear is crickets
> > > chirping...)
> >
> > Maybe you should try #validator on IRC, which is the other forum for
> > this.  The trouble with official pronouncements is that they do
> > require rather more preparation than a post by you or me.
> >
> > Would you still say the badges were a bad thing, if they were
> > accompanied by a service that would email you a report listing
> > invalid pages on your site, with links to the tools to fix it?  This
> > is not a hypothetical question: it's an element of the Site Valet QA
> > programme.
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 02:02:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:00 GMT