W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > July 2003

Re: Invalid Tiki Wiki page

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:51:22 -0400
To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>
Cc: W3C Validator <www-validator@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200307071351.22376.reagle@w3.org>

Terje,

Your understanding of the usage validator icons corresponds to the W3C's 
Trademark and Service Mark license:
  http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/trademark-license-20021231
However, for a validator to remain meaningful, and for our registered 
trademark to continue to be of value, when we are aware of those who are 
violating the marks/icons we have the ability, and to some extent a 
responsibility, to identify and attempt to resolve the problem. 
Consequently, we should always try to be as clear as possible about the 
usage of our marks/icons, and to maintain the tools available to us so as 
to ensure they continue to be useful mechanisms for encouraging conformance 
to W3C Recommendations.

On Friday 04 July 2003 20:32, Terje Bless wrote:
> Of course, the fact that the TikiWiki home page is not valid markup and
> still displays the assertion "Valid XHTML 1.0" does detract quite a bit
> from their credibility, but it's still just a matter of them lying to
> their users and not something that actually implicates the W3C (despite
> the appearance of the W3C logo on the page).
>
> We've historically taken the position here that the badges are merely a
> convenience provided for authors to assert that they are in compliance
> with a given standard. For W3C standards (Recommendations) the icons
> contain the W3C logo, and for non-W3C standards they contain a different
> logo (e.g. the Netscape or Sun logos). i.e. the logos do not reflect an
> assertion that the W3C, as such, has pronounced the page in question to
> be valid, only that the author of the page asserts it is valid and that
> the standard to which it is valid happened to be produced by the W3C.
>
> The main reason for that reasoning is that to allow more would put the
> W3C in the uncomfortable slippery slope towards actually providing a
> certification programme or service. And while that would certainly be a
> worthwhile thing to do, it would be very expensive and hard to administer
> (not the least because of the inherent legal pitfalls in such a service).

-- 
Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 13:51:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:14:09 GMT