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: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:33:05 -0500
Message-ID: <46FA0B31.3060907@fastmail.us>
To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
CC: public-html@w3.org

Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> How about "Syntactically valid" and "Semantically conforming" ?
>
> ** P. 
Personally, I prefer modifications of a single base term to two 
different terms; I’d say that it’s easier to understand and remember. 
It’s a minor point, but I also associate validity with a check against 
something like a document type definition rather than an entire 
specification; HTML 5 lacks such a thing.

I suppose that the term “syntactically valid” (or “technically valid”) 
would be acceptable if the word “valid” is insisted upon over 
“conforming”. If you do that though, you may as well also use 
“semantically valid” for consistency (though I can’t say that I care for 
that term). While I prefer the word “conforming”, I do see a point in 
usage of the word “valid” though since the term “validator” is in wide 
use while terms like “technical conformance checker” or, more simply, 
“conformance checker” are not. Then again, would “syntactically valid” 
would make a validator a “syntactic validator”?

— Patrick Garies
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 07:33:21 UTC

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