Re: keep conformance objective (detailed review of section 1. Introduction)

Patrick Garies wrote:

> 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.

Agreed, but would you not agree with James that
"valid" and "conforming" are easy to comprehend,
and arguable more so than several variants of
"conforming" ?

Philip TAYLOR