Re: "valid [X]HTML x.x!" icons are Evil (was Re: Thanks a lot)

On Sun, 16 Dec 2001, James Ralston wrote:

> However, along those lines...
> The more I think about the "valid [X]HTML x.x!" image issue, the more
> I believe that Frank has a valid complaint there.  For I have reached
> this conclusion:
>     Encouraging web authors to put "valid [X]HTML x.x!" images (or
>     text to that effect) on pages that have been validated is Evil.
>     The W3C validator service should immediately cease this behavior.


> Consider this text:
>    "To show your readers that you have taken the care to create an
>     interoperable Web page, you may display this icon on any page that
>     validates.  Here is the HTML you could use to add this icon to
>     your Web page."

that should be 'you may want to display this icon'. w3C does not give
permission and does not enforce use or misuse of the icon.

What the W3C should be recommending is the inclusion of a link that
automatically revalidates the page...

>     If you want to keep track of when you last checked the validity of
>     this Web page, here is a comment suitable for adding to the page:
>     <!--
>     W3C validation service <> results
>     Valid XHTML 1.1 as of 2001-12-16 17:34:00-04
>     -->

nice idea - but nest <> in comments? urgh.
and who reads comments anyway?


why isn't the validator e.g. an apache module that validates
everything as it goes out and logs errors?


Received on Monday, 17 December 2001 07:55:32 UTC