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: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 09:43:03 +0100
Message-ID: <46FA1B97.8070907@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
To: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
CC: HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>

Patrick Garies wrote:

> 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.

That is a serious bone of contention which I believe
must be addressed before the specification can be
written.  But my idea of using two words instead of
variants of one is that we are trying to communicate
two quite different ideas : what makes a document
(syntactically) valid, and what extra steps are needed
before a valid document may also legitimately
claim to conform to a formal-but-not-machine-verifiable

** Phil.
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 08:42:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:26 UTC