W3C supposed to have something to do with STANDARDS

Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:

> > You mean, if I know it's valid I can display the W3C logo
> > without bothering with the validators?
>
> Sure. The validator's current output for a valid page says
> "you may display this icon on any page that validates."
> (to be more precise, it should probably end with
> "...as this level of HTML.")
>
> If you use some other validation process (like another site that
> does true SGML validation, an HTML compliant editor, or some
> other SGML tool), I don't see why you can't display the W3C
> icons, since you can be fairly sure that W3C's validator will
> just tell you the same thing.

I can't believe this is coming from a W3C representative.

The phrase, "you may display this icon on any page that validates," is
meaningless if its context -- on the W3C page, following a successful
validation -- isn't understood to make it implicitly refer to W3C's own
validator.

Any fool can write a validator.

The HTML standards body should not be approving HTML that's been run
through any arbitrary validator. If it does we'll be stuck forever with
the current anarchic situation: massive waste of human industry as web
authors worldwide find it's not adequate to learn the rules, they also
have to test repeatedly under a range of browsers.

The W3C logo should only be permitted -- and is only permitted, given a
sensible reading of the site -- after W3C-endorsed validation. So far
that means validation using ONLY the W3C's own validator, until
http://validator.w3.org/ is updated with new information.

"Another site that does true SGML validation" begs the question. People
don't know how arbitrary 3'rd party sites are doing validation.

P.S. Email me on replies as I've unsubscribed.

--
http://www.urielw.com/

Received on Sunday, 3 October 1999 23:40:38 UTC