Re: uri=referer

olivier Thereaux wrote:

> On 14-May-08, at 1:56 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>> When uses as a link to something like
>> http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer (as required by the
>> W3C
>> in their licence conditions
>
> I haven't seen any such statement in the w3c licenses, nor the icons
> usage guidelines, nor anywhere - as far as I can tell.

It's where one can expect to find it:

"The icon must be used as a link to revalidate the Web page".

http://validator.w3.org/docs/help.html#icon-license

Admittedly, my formulation was somewhat vague (as the above-quoted 
statement is). The point is that by the W3C rules, _if_ the icon is 
used, then it _must_ be "a link to revalidate". And doing this the 
suggested way results in the uri=referer confusion.

> The only legal requirement/policy at this point is "do not make w3c
> logos if you are not w3c". This is due to trademark concerns, as
> covered by international law - and we are looking at relaxing the
> constraints so as to offer more choice in size, color, etc.

There is no international law on trademarks, just international 
conventions and national laws. Where I live, you can have a trademark on 
products that you _sell_ on the market.

> Your opinion on the icons are here, stated, and archived. Many times.
> Everyone respects your opinion.

I don't think so. Respect would be shown by adequately addressing the 
_arguments_ I have presented (collected at 
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/validation.html#icon ). Prove them 
wrong, or agree with them and draw the conclusions, but please don't 
tell me you respect my opinion when you ignore it without saying why.

> Not quite: “This is a W3C Candidate Recommendation, which means the
> specification has been widely reviewed and W3C recommends that it be
> implemented.” -- http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/#status

Reading forward, we see:

"Publication as a Candidate Recommendation does not imply endorsement by 
the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, 
replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is 
inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress."

Of course, the actual situation is more stable than those statements 
suggest, but still - what's the point of claiming conformance (via a 
"Valid CSS" icon or otherwise) to something that has been declared to be 
unstable?

Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 14:58:08 UTC