[UA-discuss] ODG: Re: UA issue

[Andrew Sullivan]

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 07:35:38PM +0000, Mark Svancarek wrote:
> We have been discussing terminology and taxonomy, this is a good example.
> 
> I like “well-formed” and “syntactically correct” and “RFC-compliant” to describe strings which we expect UA-Ready applications and services to consume in RFC-compliant ways.
> 
> I think “valid” is a good way to describe strings which are not only syntactically correct but also in use in the ecosystem.

IDNA has the notion of PVALID (or PROTOCOL-VALID) for code points that
are definitely allowed, so "valid" might sow confusion.  Perhaps "proper"?

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
ajs at anvilwalrusden.com