Nice Interesting reading, it sounds familiar. but it was 10 years
ago. :)
[[[
"We started with a simple plan," W3C's Dave Raggett explains. "We'd
only put in things that were being used as of January 1st, 1996. That
isn't a particularly ambitious undertaking, but it got the project
off to a good start. Also we decided that the joint spec didn't have
to specify everything. It just had to specify things that we felt
comfortable about.
"In a sense it was a reverse-engineering assignment," Dan Connolly,
the group's chair adds. "We wanted to take what people were already
doing and write it up. Basically we had to decide which elements we
were going to bless."
By concentrating on existing practice only, the ERB was able to get a
non-controversial start. But were they just laying down track after
the train had gone by?
]]] -- W3C Journal
http://www.w3journal.com/5/s1.discussn.html
Wed, 23 Jul 1997 21:38:45 GMT
Many other interesting things to read in
Advancing HTML: Style and Substance
Volume 2, Issue 1 (Winter 1997)
http://www.w3journal.com/5/toc.html
--
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
