W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

Re: keep conformance objective (detailed review of section 1. Introduction)

From: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:51:03 -0500
Message-ID: <46F8E817.7060203@fastmail.us>
To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
CC: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, public-html@w3.org

Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> There are very good (pragmatic and theoretical) grounds
> for differentiating between "valid" and "conforming", and
> I would be very happy to tone down my own statement to
> refer to "validity" rather than "conformance".  The set of
> "valid" documents are those that pass formal validation;
> the set of "conforming" documents are those that (a) are
> valid, and (b) "conform" to other requirements that are
> not amenable to machine verification (such as, for example,
> the requirement that <blockquote> contain a quotation, and
> be not simply a convenience for achieving visually indented
> text).
>
> Philip TAYLOR
You could also modify the term “conforming”; for example, you could have 
terms like “technically conforming” and “semantically conforming” where 
the former is machine‐verifiable conformance (e.g., wellformedness, 
legal characters in attribute values, and correct element placement) and 
the latter is conformance that can’t be verified by a machine (e.g., 
content suits an element’s intended purpose and attribute values make 
sense). A document that is both technically and semantically conforming, 
could be “conforming”, “fully conforming”, “strictly conforming”, or 
some other term.

— Patrick Garies
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 10:51:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:49 UTC