- From: Jonathan Rosenne <rosenne@qsm.co.il>
- Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 09:36:07 +0200
- To: "'html-w3c'" <www-html@w3.org>
I would like to point out a single aspect among many, one which is also relevant to this list: Internationalization. ASCII is simple enough for most developers and even managers to understand, but internationalization is tough. W3C helped make Unicode the lingua franca and reference point of character sets. Jony > -----Original Message----- > From: www-html-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-html-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Panos Stokas > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 9:49 AM > To: html-w3c > Subject: Re: Why bother? > > > > I think... > > The difference is that XML parsers simply won't accept broken XML. > HTML > > The question is not about parsers. It is about forming > specifications whose importance is slighted by the members > themselves. The question is what W3C has really done, besides > CSS, to "Lead the Web to its Full Potential" and how > different the web would really be without W3C. Only slightly > IMO. Perhaps to the best. Authors of alternative browsers > would waste less time incorporating the specifications > correctly and they would make more competitive products. > > > >
Received on Saturday, 2 March 2002 02:36:32 UTC