Re: keep conformance objective (detailed review of section 1. Introduction) from Philip TAYLOR on 2007-09-25 (public-html@w3.org from September 2007)

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