> > Let the market regulate itself. Let standards-compliant markup sites > > take over because of their benefits actually manifesting themselves > > (easier to maintain, faster, etc). We don't need yet another > > badge...imho of course. > > It's not yet another badge, it was a way to show compliance > in a way that average people could relate to. As a response > to the charge that the W3C buttons and validator links are > too techy and people business people don't get it. >
I agree wholeheartedly with Patric on this. Badge is something you get for being exceptional. And I think building websites to webstandards is not something we should talk about as a big achievement, but it must be the standard way of doing the web. The norm. When more clean and valid sites appear, then more old-school methods will look rusted and outdated. This is not to say we shouldn't educate and provide guidance for those who are new to this world, but I think form the very first days they must get an impression, that's not something braggable, but rather the norm of doing quality craft. Things to consider: http://www.stuffandnonsense.co.uk/archives/advocating_the_quiet_revolution.html http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2005/11/the_new_amateur.html Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
