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