Re: [EXT] Re: Valid HTML icon for HTML5
Philip Taylor <[email protected]> Sat, 27 Jun 2020 10:28:16 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.w3c.validator |
|---|---|
| Organization | Hellenic Institute, Royal Holloway, University of London |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--------------65BD531FFE3799E94BD9D2E2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Steve Faulkner wrote: Hi Wayne, this may help: Will there be a valid HTML5 icon? No, there won=E2=80=99t be a Valid HTML icon any time soon and likely not e= ver. The reason is basically that =E2=80=9CThis is valid=E2=80=9D icons/badges p= romote the idea that there=E2=80=99s significant value in making public cla= ims of pass/fail document-conformance requirements in standards. But the HTML5 checker is by design not intended to encourage anybody to use= it as a means to make public assertions of simple pass/fail conformance of= any documents to any particular specifications; it=E2=80=99s intended sole= ly as a checker =E2=80=94 for people to use to catch unintended mistakes in= documents and fix them =E2=80=94 not as a pass/fail certification mechanis= m. There won=E2=80=99t be any proper Valid HTML5 icon forthcoming, so if you= =E2=80=99d like to use one in your content, you=E2=80=99ll probably need to= create one on your own. source: http://html5doctor.com/html5-check-it-before-you-wreck-it-with-mike= tm-smith/<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttp%3A%2F%= 2Fhtml5doctor.com%2Fhtml5-check-it-before-you-wreck-it-with-miketm-smith%2F= &data=3D02%7C01%7CP.Taylor%40Rhul.Ac.Uk%7C678c315e9eb045e9136708d81a787749%= 7C2efd699a19224e69b601108008d28a2e%7C0%7C0%7C637288452006108501&sdata=3DdnH= suJUmiUooMZM6TVK4pW5QF8N%2FSVq55o%2FkLQe8NPI%3D&reserved=3D0> -- Regards SteveF I realise that those are not your words, Steve, but rather the words of Mic= hael Smith, but I nonetheless wish to registered my objection to the sentim= ent(s) expressed therein. Where the author writes : "=E2=80=9CThis is val= id=E2=80=9D icons/badges promote the idea that there=E2=80=99s significant = value in making public claims of pass/fail document-conformance requirement= s in standards", I completely disagree. =E2=80=9CThis is valid=E2=80=9D ic= ons/badges promote the idea that there is significant value in ensuring tha= t documents conform to standards", and that is surely a statement with whic= h no-one, I believe, would seek to disagree. The real problem lies in the fact that, with the advent of HTML 5, one can = no longer ensure that one's (HTML 5) documents do conform to a given standa= rd, since the whole concept of a "standard" in its traditional sense has be= en abolished and replaced by the insanity of the so-called "living standard= " =E2=80=94 something so evanescent that a document which might putatively = claim to conform today might equally well fail to conform tomorrow. And of= course this is reflected in the "HTML 5 Checker" =E2=80=94 no longer a val= idator, because there is no longer anything against which to validate. Eve= n the DOCTYPE directive, which until the advent of HTML 5 uniquely and unam= biguously specified the variant of HTML to which the document purported to = conform, has been abolished and replaced with the totally meaningless <!DOC= TYPE html> which basically says "What follows is HTML, but which HTML is to= tally undefined". Philip Taylor This email, its contents and any attachments are intended solely for the ad= dressee and may contain confidential information. In certain circumstances,= it may also be subject to legal privilege. Any unauthorised use, disclosur= e, or copying is not permitted. If you have received this email in error, p= lease notify us and immediately and permanently delete it. Any views or opi= nions expressed in personal emails are solely those of the author and do no= t necessarily represent those of Royal Holloway, University of London. It i= s your responsibility to ensure that this email and any attachments are vir= us free. --------------65BD531FFE3799E94BD9D2E2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html> <head> <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"> </head> <body text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"> <div class=3D"moz-cite-prefix">Steve Faulkner wrote:<br> <br> </div> <blockquote type=3D"cite" cite=3D"mid:CA+ri+VnbGhPLQ3tjF-hxx76st231= [email protected]"> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <div>Hi Wayne, this may help:</div> <div><br> </div> <div> <h2>Will there be a valid HTML5 icon?</h2> <p>No, there won=E2=80=99t be a Valid HTML icon any time soon and likely no= t ever.</p> <p>The reason is basically that =E2=80=9CThis is valid=E2=80=9D icons/badge= s promote the idea that there=E2=80=99s significant value in making public = claims of pass/fail document-conformance requirements in standards.</p> <p>But the HTML5 checker is by design not intended to encourage anybody to = use it as a means to make public assertions of simple pass/fail conformance= of any documents to any particular specifications; it=E2=80=99s intended s= olely as a checker =E2=80=94 for people to use to catch unintended mistakes in documents and fix them =E2=80=94 not as a pas= s/fail certification mechanism.</p> <p>There won=E2=80=99t be any proper Valid HTML5 icon forthcoming, so if yo= u=E2=80=99d like to use one in your content, you=E2=80=99ll probably need t= o create one on your own.</p> </div> <div>source: <a href=3D"https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= =3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fhtml5doctor.com%2Fhtml5-check-it-before-you-wreck-it-with-m= iketm-smith%2F&data=3D02%7C01%7CP.Taylor%40Rhul.Ac.Uk%7C678c315e9eb045e= 9136708d81a787749%7C2efd699a19224e69b601108008d28a2e%7C0%7C0%7C637288452006= 108501&sdata=3DdnHsuJUmiUooMZM6TVK4pW5QF8N%2FSVq55o%2FkLQe8NPI%3D&r= eserved=3D0" originalsrc=3D"http://html5doctor.com/html5-check-it-before-yo= u-wreck-it-with-miketm-smith/" shash=3D"TY5ZDsIWv2viGHYwNG3ys5e12kJeQAhvcwu= WARrnqEPBJcOf9q4iWKP0nNbt9jTEa05sASZcSKMaH7eSgai8GiogFM/aZncFgsmkyjVXh7l1Ew= sag+D3XkdsxEDYBc9gOThUEe5PIautCSOmg0wXY10Sf44CfMm3cJHWNFQS9qc=3D" moz-d= o-not-send=3D"true"> http://html5doctor.com/html5-check-it-before-you-wreck-it-with-miketm-smith= /</a></div> <div><br> </div> <div> <div> <div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signatur= e"> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <div> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <div> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <div> <div>--<br> <br> Regards<br> <br> SteveF</div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <br> I realise that those are not your words, Steve, but rather the words of Mic= hael Smith, but I nonetheless wish to registered my objection to the sentim= ent(s) expressed therein. Where the author writes : "=E2= =80=9CThis is valid=E2=80=9D icons/badges promote the idea that there=E2=80= =99s significant value in making public claims of pass/fail document-conformanc= e requirements in standards", I completely disagree. =E2=80=9CTh= is is valid=E2=80=9D icons/badges promote the idea that there is significan= t value <i>in ensuring that documents conform to standards</i>"<i>, </i>and th= at is surely a statement with which no-one, I believe, would seek to disagr= ee.<br> <br> The real problem lies in the fact that, with the advent of HTML 5, one can = no longer ensure that one's (HTML 5) documents <i>do</i> conform to a given standard, since the whole concept of a "s= tandard" in its traditional sense has been abolished and replaced by t= he insanity of the so-called "living standard" =E2=80=94 somethin= g so evanescent that a document which might putatively claim to conform today might equally well fail to conform tomorrow. And of= course this is reflected in the "HTML 5 Checker" =E2=80=94 no lo= nger a validator, because there is no longer anything against which to vali= date. Even the DOCTYPE directive, which until the advent of HTML 5 uniquely and unambiguously specified the variant of HTML to whic= h the document purported to conform, has been abolished and replaced with t= he totally meaningless <!DOCTYPE html> which basically says "Wha= t follows is HTML, but <i>which </i>HTML is totally undefined".<br> <br> <i>Philip Taylor</i><br> <i></i> <p>This email, its contents and any attachments are intended solely for the= addressee and may contain confidential information. In certain circumstanc= es, it may also be subject to legal privilege. Any unauthorised use, disclo= sure, or copying is not permitted. If you have received this email in error, please notify us and immediately= and permanently delete it. Any views or opinions expressed in personal ema= ils are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those o= f Royal Holloway, University of London. It is your responsibility to ensure that this email and any attach= ments are virus free.</p> <p></p> </body> </html> --------------65BD531FFE3799E94BD9D2E2--