2 ms·
This seems exceptionally misleading. Playing with the filters on https://www.w3.org/TR/ https://www.w3.org/TR/, we find out filtering to latest documents (to ex
by gsnedders 6y ago
This seems exceptionally misleading. Playing with the filters on https://www.w3.org/TR/ https://www.w3.org/TR/, we find out filtering to latest documents (to exclude cases where there are multiple versions of a single document) brings us down to 953, excluding non-normative notes brings us down to 573, we can likely exclude all semweb-related specs to bring us down to 480 specs.
And that's still including 199 working drafts, not all of which have any implementation (and some are unlikely to ever have any at this point, essentially long-abandoned).
The web platform arguably has problems with scale, but it's nowhere near that extreme.
- bryanrasmussen 6y agoAlso if you were starting a browser development nowadays you could probably safely strip out most of the XML specs as not that relevant. Keep XML, XML Namespaces, drop XSL-T (despite how much I love it, I would not implement if I were building a browser), XSL-FO (never had browser implementation tht I'm aware of), XML Schema and probably some other stuff I'm forgetting. Those are some wordy specs we would be dropping.