Re: snapshots vs living standards

On Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:38:55 +0100, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  
wrote:

> 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.

Sure.

> (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]).

Yes. And because there is the HTML5 spec, Mikes H:TML spec, the Web  
Education Community Group, and so on, I don't think this argument is  
particularly fruitful - it seems we're learning those lessons and applying  
what we've learned, more or less independently of discussions how W3C  
process should work.

cheers

> Best regards, Julian
>
> [1] <http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/>
>


-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan litt norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com

Received on Monday, 5 March 2012 15:50:25 UTC