- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:38:55 +0100
- To: Karl Dubost <karld@opera.com>
- CC: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>, public-w3process@w3.org, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
On 2012-03-05 16:22, Karl Dubost wrote: > > 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.) Indeed. The HTML5 spec is optimized for a certain class of developers (UA implementors), which IMHO makes it a pain to process for other people. (and yes, the alternate format helps, but I believe most content authors would prefer something that is closer to form of the HTML4 spec; something Mike's spec is closer to [1]). Best regards, Julian [1] <http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/>
Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 15:39:31 UTC