W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > September 2007

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

From: j.j. <moz@jeka.info>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:14:45 +0200
Message-ID: <20070925131445.wlxj9ni25cc80cks@www.hosting-agency.de>
To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
Cc: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, public-html@w3.org

Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>: hodd gsachd:

> 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" ?

I'd say “technically conforming” and “semantically conforming” are  
much easier to understand for non-english native speakers like me.

Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 11:14:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:26 UTC