Re: RES: [WSG] Serving Different Content to Returning Visitors

[Michael Shaw]

Hassan Schroeder wrote:

SosCpdGMail wrote:
Sorry, im quite new to all that, but cant you look for cached 
content? Ip
addresses cannot be used I think, because routers and all that, but 
cached

files will be sure on client machine if he don't clear cache since last
visit.


And you'll look for cached content how?

Time how long it takes to receive a large file (eg more than a few 
hundred k) with Javascript. If it is very low surely that indicates a 
very fast connection or a cache hit. I wouldn't stake my life on it but 
it might provide some indication (and annoy any users with slower 
connections.)



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] Valid and well-formed

[Michael Shaw]

Valid documents are well-formed, well-formedness is a condition of validity.

Katrina wrote:

Gday all,

I've been pondering this for a few days and I was wondering what other 
people's take on this is:


David Hammond suggests that validity is not well-formedness, in that a 
document can be well-formed and not valid, but could also be !!! valid 
and not well-formed.


http://www.webdevout.net/articles/validity-and-well-formedness#validity_well_formedness 



It was my understanding that valid were a subset of well-formed 
documents, and therefore, by its very nature, valid documents were 
well-formed.


I believe this is supported by the documentation from the W3C:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-documents
suggest that in addition, the XML document is valid if it meets 
certain further constraints. That suggests to me that conformation to 
a specification is in addition to well-formed-ness, in order to be valid.


For further support, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML#Well-formed_and_valid_XML_documents
that says that valid pages *additionally* conforms to some semantic 
rule(s). That additionally to me would suggest being well-formed.



Is David Hammond correct? Or is he relying on some errors of the 
validator to justify his arguments?


Kat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***