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

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

From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:56:12 +0100
Message-ID: <46F8E94C.9090206@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
To: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
CC: James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, public-html@w3.org



Patrick Garies wrote:

> 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.

Agreed, but would you not agree with James that
"valid" and "conforming" are easy to comprehend,
and arguable more so than several variants of
"conforming" ?

Philip TAYLOR
Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 10:56:01 UTC

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