Re: keep conformance objective (detailed review of section 1. Introduction) from Patrick Garies on 2007-09-26 (public-html@w3.org from September 2007)

From: Patrick Garies <pgaries@fastmail.us>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 04:39:53 -0500
To: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>
CC: public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <46FA28E9.2090404@fastmail.us>

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

Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2007 09:40:10 UTC