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

Philip TAYLOR wrote:
> But my idea of using two words instead of
> variants of one is that we are trying to communicate
> two quite different ideas : what makes a document
> (syntactically) valid, and what extra steps are needed
> before a valid document may also legitimately
> claim to conform to a formal-but-not-machine-verifiable
> specification.
>
> ** Phil.
The ideas aren’t so different; they’re simply two different aspects of 
conformance. A document that uses incorrect syntax is not conforming and 
neither is a document that violates specified semantic rules.

— Patrick Garies