- From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Oct 1999 20:28:40 -0700
- To: <bart@gigabee.com>
- Cc: "Gerald Oskoboiny" <gerald@w3.org>, <www-validator@w3.org>
At 10:47 PM 10/05/1999 -0400, B. Szyszka wrote: >> Isn't XHTML a proposed recommendation? It doesn't make sense to issue >> icons for something that has not cleared the W3C process yet. >If I can validate the code against XHTML at the W3C validator, then I'm assuming >that an icon that represents me taking that process is within the boundaries of >logic. It's not, because XHTML may still change. It doesn't make sense to issue icons for something that's still going through the W3C process; it's not within the W3C's style to issue official icons for something that isn't official yet. Nothing says you are _guaranteed_ an icon for any particular validation process. In fact, validation icons may actually be a poor idea in the long run, although in the short run they are good for promoting the idea of interoperable web design. -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ Catch the web accessibility meme! http://aware.hwg.org/
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 1999 23:38:04 UTC