- From: Philip TAYLOR (Webmaster, Ret'd) <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:03:15 +0100
- To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- CC: Rune Schjellerup Philosof <rusp@tv2.dk>, "www-validator@w3.org" <www-validator@w3.org>
Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > I’ve been told that in such situations, the problems should be > reported in the bug reporting system for validator.nu, as the > “HTML5 mode” of the W3C Markup Validator is effectively just > a clone of the validator.nu code. IMHO, if the W3C validator team elect to use validator.nu to provide a part of their validation service, and re-badge it such that the user perceives at as a W3C service and not as a Validator.Nu service, then bug reports for the W3C-branded version should go to (and be accepted by) W3C. It is then up to them to forward the bug reports to Validator.Nu if/when appropriate. This is a direct analogue of the retail/manufacturer situation : a customer buys from a retailer, not from a manufacturer, and therefore if/when the goods prove faulty, the legal obligation lies with the retailer to provide redress, not the manufacturer. If W3C aren't willing to accept responsibility for Validator.Nu code, then they should not offer it branded as a W3C service. Philip Taylor
Received on Saturday, 15 October 2011 11:03:53 UTC