From: Doug Ewell (email@example.com)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 18:27:53 EDT
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 28 2003 - 19:08:18 EDT