- From: ed nixon <ed.nixon@lynnparkplace.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 09:26:49 -0400
- CC: public-evangelist@w3.org
I forwarded a copy of the recent analysis/validation note to Carrie with
commiserations and the suggestion she send it along to the Library
Journal and the company responsible for the "Powered by" logo in the
left-hand margin.
These content management systems can be a real challenge in terms of
standards and accessibility. In addition, all parties have so much
vested in the "solution" in terms of money, ego and status, that the
message tends not to be one they want to hear.
...edN
Karl Dubost wrote:
>
> At 5:56 -0700 2002-08-19, Thanasis Kinias wrote:
>
>> For laughs, check out the output of running the W3C validator on that
>> document:
>>
>> <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Flibraryjournal.reviewsnews.com%2Findex.asp%3Flayout%3DarticlePrint%26articleID%3DCA%2B232338%26publication%3Dlibraryjournal&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline>
>>
>
>
> That's often the problem when the author is not the publisher. The only
> the author can do is try to convince the people that it must be deliver
> as standards. Unfortunately, the publisher usually doesn't care or
> doesn't want to fix all the system for one person requesting it.
>
> But maybe it's another way to ask for more standard, but will work only
> with big voices. I don't come to your conference if your website is not
> standard.
>
> The other side of it is we are in an educationnal phase, and the
> conference organizer can say, not a problem we'll ask for someone else.
>
> So what's the best?
>
>
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 09:26:16 UTC