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

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

From: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:20:32 +0100
Message-ID: <46F8EF00.1050205@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
To: "j.j." <moz@jeka.info>
CC: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>, James Graham <jg307@cam.ac.uk>, public-html@w3.org




j.j. wrote:

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

How about "Syntactically valid" and "Semantically conforming" ?

** P.

Received on Tuesday, 25 September 2007 11:20:28 GMT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: David Orchard: "HTML 5 and Distributed Extensibility"
Previous message: j.j.: "Re: keep conformance objective (detailed review of section 1. Introduction)"
In reply to: j.j.: "Re: keep conformance objective (detailed review of section 1. Introduction)"
Next in thread: Patrick Garies: "Re: keep conformance objective (detailed review of section 1. Introduction)"
Reply: Patrick Garies: "Re: keep conformance objective (detailed review of section 1. Introduction)"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 15 February 2008 16:12:18 GMT