- From: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:22:19 -0500
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org, "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>
Le 5 mars 2012 à 05:49, Charles McCathieNevile a écrit : > It is reasonable to argue that HTML4 was not a well-written spec, and I > think generally accepted that it did not match reality very well. I do not think that is true either. Again "what is the crowd?". HTML4 was perceived by *Web developers* as a huge improvement over HTML 3.2 in terms of clarity and explanation. We had for once a specification which had examples and _clear_ descriptions. It might certainly have been a pain for implementers. HTML4 with the glasses of now is indeed a more ambiguous spec. (Not that I have seen many Web authors complaining about HTML5 which led to the specific versions of HTML5 for them.) -- Karl Dubost - http://dev.opera.com/ Developer Relations, Opera Software
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 15:22:55 UTC