Criteria for displaying Savvy logo (was: Re: Not snazzy)

From: Doug Ewell (
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 18:27:53 EDT

  • Next message: John Hudson: "Re: Not snazzy (was: New Unicode Savvy Logo)"

    Edward H Trager <ehtrager at umich dot edu> wrote:

    > The only thing I question a little bit is the second rule above that
    > says that you can still display the Unicode logo even if your page has
    > unrelated HTML validation errors. I would favor a stricter rule that
    > says you have to clean up all of your W3C validation errors first, and
    > then you can display the logo. Nothing wrong with holding people to a
    > higher standard, right? (Actually, this will force me to clean up my
    > own pages too!)

    Although I'm a strong believer in writing good HTML and validating it --
    all of my pages display the "Valid XHTML 1.0" logo -- I don't think
    displaying the Unicode Savvy/Compliant/Whatever logo should depend on
    having otherwise perfect HTML.

    A page may be encoded in error-free UTF-8 and display a wide range of
    characters, combining marks, etc., but may have a <table> or <meta> or
    tag-nesting error. That page may not be valid (X)HTML, but it is
    perfectly good Unicode. Unicode validation is not W3C validation.

    If you write your page in error-free Unicode *and* pass the W3C
    validator, you get to display both logos.

    -Doug Ewell
     Fullerton, California

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 28 2003 - 19:08:18 EDT