- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 16:49:45 +0100
- To: "Karl Dubost" <karld@opera.com>, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Cc: public-w3process@w3.org, "Philippe Le Hegaret" <plh@w3.org>
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