- From: Henrik Dvergsdal <henrik.dvergsdal@hibo.no>
- Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 11:28:36 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
On 11. apr. 2007, at 04.10, Daniel Glazman wrote: > HTML 4 is so underspecified it's a miracle it's even implemented. > And I am one of the few here (with Murray, Chris and Dan) who were > already here in the HTML WG for HTML 4. OK. I guess this comes down to a difference in viewpoints. Looks like HTML4 works much better for authors/developers than for implementors. Probably because implementors have been so good at filling in the gaps. Apart from a few annoying issues, mostly related to forms and media, HTML 4.01 Strict is fairly interoperable these days. In practice, most of the problems are related to DOM and CSS incompatibilities. However, I guess this is not a place for a discussion on the quality of HTML4. What is more interesting, is what level of specification detail we should have on HTML5. If we put HTML4.01 at one end of the scale and ECMA-262 at the other, where should we place HTML5? If we go for a very high level of detail, I think it will be useful to have a superficial, syntactically oriented author view on the spec so that authors/developers can share the same source without having to relate to all the algorithms. In most cases authors/developers don't need the algorithms - they just need to validate the syntax and then check with the browsers if things work/look ok. -- Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 09:29:10 UTC