[UA-discuss] ODG: Re: UA issue

[Mark Svancarek]

Good point.  But I don't think that "proper" captures the fact that the string is in use and could be expected to return a result...

-----Original Message-----
From: ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ua-discuss-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:18 PM
To: ua-discuss at icann.org
Subject: Re: [UA-discuss] ODG: Re: UA issue

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