Robert_Charlton - 10:07 am on Jan 27, 2011 (gmt 0)
@Robert Charlton: not sure if that's what you were referring to with your "civil war", perhaps it was just the military style of the logo hehe but I was initially confused too.
It was the shield and the sergeant's stripes and some of the material I've quoted here.
From an outsider's point of view... and I should emphasize that I haven't followed the personalities of these groups... I'm still confused. I'm seeing what appears to be the splintering of an alliance, with one side appearing to be desperately flashing badges and ranting bombastic rhetoric, and the other side appearing to be snearing back and saying: "Badges, we don't need no stinking' badges"... [youtube.com...] ...Can't tell how much, if anything, from either side is intended to be in good fun.
Now, looking at the W3C logo page [w3.org] more deeply, I'm seeing that the W3C is suggesting tools to build custom badges for features implemented (perhaps instead of version numbers?). Do I detect some heavy irony here, or, again, are they really serious? Who cares about logos on what's been implemented? That's like: "This site works better in Netscape 4".
The whole point, I would think, is that we have a uniform and overall set of specifications at any one time... easily identified (yes, by number)... to which all browser makers and developers adhere, so we have some expectation of sites working uniformly in all current browsers for a reasonable amount of time.
Sorry to be dense, but is this [w3.org] irony or have these guys flipped?...
Badge Builder 5000
You're seconds away from your own stunning, customized badge. Fire up the Badge Builder 5000.
What the tech?
Build a logo that shows off what you use.