- From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:56:12 +0100
- 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