3 ms·
This is a great little site. A) How has the web been around for this long and nobody has done this before, i.e. there isn't at least some kind of authoritative
by edblarney 10y ago
This is a great little site.
A) How has the web been around for this long and nobody has done this before, i.e. there isn't at least some kind of authoritative reference like this?
B) Having worked with many UI/layout paradigms, and full aware of the fact that none of them are very good - css is indeed perhaps the worst. It takes quite a lot of abstraction on top of it to make sense of it.
But it's what we have - so good work.
- Raphmedia 10y agoThere are references already but they are often really dry.
- HTeuMeuLeuOnHN 10y agoRegarding point A, here are a few sites that come off the top of my head : * Index of CSS Properties by W3C https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/all-properties.en.html https://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/all-properties.en.html * CSS Reference by Mozilla Developer Network https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/CSS/Reference https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/CSS/Reference * CSS Reference by Tympanus http://tympanus.net/codrops/css_reference/ http://tympanus.net/codrops/css_reference/ * CSS Almanac by CSS-Tricks https://css-tricks.com/almanac/ https://css-tricks.com/almanac/
- edblarney 10y agoYes - those list a bunch of values - but they don't help that much in terms of actual documentation. They list nothing but the values. Even MDN, which is probably the closest thing to 'standard' has very few examples, missing definitions, nothing interactive. W3C is only really the basic stuff. Let's face it: the tool we all use for showing our stuff to the world basically has no documentation. It's a mess. The Mac/Safari documentation is literally blank for tons of objects. I mean - $100B billion in the bank and they can't make docs. Even swift documentation is totally lacking in examples and hard to read (they're still depending on your ability to read Objective-C stuff).
- 91bananas 10y agoTo your last point, making developers lives easier does not move their bottom line is my assumption. If they improve docs it isn't going to sell one single extra Mac, so why should they bother?
- amichal 10y agohttp://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/propindex/all.htm http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/propindex/all.htm has been around since the beginning
- amichal 10y agohttp://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/propindex/all.htm http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/propindex/all.htm has been around since the beginning
- amichal 10y agohttp://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/propindex/all.htm http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/propindex/all.htm has been around since the beginning
- HNSucksAss 10y agoI agree it's a good idea that's long overdue, but I started at the first page and the descriptions don't make sense in combination with the illustration. For example, the first illustration has five numbered boxes, but there are no references to them in the descriptive text. And the description says they'll "stretch," but does that mean horizontally AND vertically? Then the next one says, "Each line will only fill the space it needs. They will all move towards the start of the flexbox container's cross axis." What is "the start of the flexbox container's cross axis?" None of those three things is identified in the illustration: the start, the flexbox container, or the "cross axis." If that's the quality of all the descriptions and illustrations, I'm afraid this is a disappointing implementation of a good idea.