In '93 to '94, every browser had its own flavor of HTML. So it was very difficult to know what you could put in a Web page and reliably have most of your readership see it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think HTML5 is one area where Mozilla has done very poorly at actually communicating what we have done.
What we now call the browser is whatever defines the web. What fits in the browser is the World Wide Web and a number of trivial standards to handle that so that the content comes.
Many thought it was a fool's errand - that the browser companies were never going to listen to us. Others argued that, 'Users don't care if you use Web standards.' Well, of course they don't. They just know that your site works better.
I tell people that the history of Mozilla and Firefox is so one of a kind that it should not be used - ever - as an example of what's possible.
If someone had protected the HTML language for making Web pages, then we wouldn't have the World Wide Web.
Writing old school HTML code was never very much fun but now it's getting downright tedious for most people.
It has been aptly noted that web browsers are less Internet navigation tools than they are ebooks with highly diverse content.
Flash and HTML have co-existed, and they're going to continue to co-exist.
If I was designing a web site for elementary school children, I might have a much higher percentage of older computers with outdated browsers since keeping up with browser and hardware technology has not traditionally been a strong point of most elementary schools.
For most of the '90s and the first part of this decade, content providers who wanted to publish online only needed to worry about the graphical web browser.