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

Re: Invalid Tiki Wiki page

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 09:56:59 -0400
To: "Luis Argerich" <luis@fuegolabs.com>
Cc: "W3C Validator" <www-validator@w3.org>, tikiwiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-Id: <200306090956.59526.reagle@w3.org>

On Monday 02 June 2003 07:35, Luis Argerich wrote:
> You can't distinguish between a valid site and a valid product.
> Our product: TikiWiki is an open-source CMS that produces valid XHTML
> output, it may have bugs but we certainly are trying to address the whole
> specification.

Hi Luis, the icons being use on [1] are not intended to distinguish between 
a "valid product" and a "valid html" page. They are only for indicating a 
valid page, of which [1] is not. (In fact, an entry from Mark Linburg even 
states that your "new homepage" is valid CSS and XHTML.) So please remove 
the icons or use them in accordance with their directions.

[1] http://tikiwiki.sourceforge.net/

> On the other hand some sites use TikiWiki and modify content, add a
> banner, add a snippet of HTML to track vistors etc and that makes the
> XHTML output invalid.
> We'll continue shipping Tiki with the XHTML logo but we can't control
> what our fellow users do with the product.

I don't understand this, you mean every Tiki site displays the "Valid HTML" 
logo, regardless of whether it is valid HTML? If so, that sounds like a bad 

Regardless, I'm sure you can appreciate the awkwardness of trying to 
convince the public that valid HTML is a good thing, and then prominent 
sites display the logo for invalid content! <smile/>
Received on Monday, 9 June 2003 09:57:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:17:37 UTC