- From: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
- Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:33:05 -0500
- 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