- From: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
- Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:51:03 -0500
- 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