- From: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 20:19:55 +0000 (GMT)
- To: James Ralston <qralston+ml.www-validator@andrew.cmu.edu>
- cc: Lloyd Wood <l.wood@eim.surrey.ac.uk>, webmaster <webmaster@domovina.net>, www-validator <www-validator@w3.org>, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, James Ralston wrote: > On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Nick Kew wrote: > > Isn't the purpose of the icon to propagate the notion that > > validation, or more generally standards-compliance, is a Good Thing? > > Yes, and it's a noble goal, but asking web authors to propagate that > notion by *explicitly advertising their pages as being valid* is a > horrible injustice, when the W3C darn well *knows* that a future > change of theirs might invalidate countless of pages with the "valid > [X]HTML x.x!" icons on them. That kind-of implies a rather high degree of self-awareness on the part of W3C, which I suspect (though I am of course open to correction) comes only in the wake of this months discussion. > I'd really like to see someone from the W3C comment on my original > "'valid [X]HTML x.x!' icons are Evil" post. (Perhaps it's being > discussed, but from my point of view, all I hear is crickets > chirping...) Maybe you should try #validator on IRC, which is the other forum for this. The trouble with official pronouncements is that they do require rather more preparation than a post by you or me. Would you still say the badges were a bad thing, if they were accompanied by a service that would email you a report listing invalid pages on your site, with links to the tools to fix it? This is not a hypothetical question: it's an element of the Site Valet QA programme. -- Nick Kew Site Valet - the mark of Quality on the Web. <URL:http://valet.webthing.com/>
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2001 15:20:02 UTC