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

From: j.j. <moz@jeka.info>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:14:45 +0200
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
Message-ID: <20070925131445.wlxj9ni25cc80cks@www.hosting-agency.de>

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.

j.j.

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