4 ms·
I'm curious about who read w3c standards, even on HN. I don't. Even MDN (which I consider as fork of w3c for humans) can be quite confusing so let's not judge p
by tangue 10y ago
I'm curious about who read w3c standards, even on HN. I don't. Even MDN (which I consider as fork of w3c for humans) can be quite confusing so let's not judge people on this.
- toxican 10y agoI don't think I've ever actually read the standards and I've been doing this 12 or so years now. I just kind of picked up on what was considered kosher and what wasn't over time. And then when having a "XHTML STRICT" badge in your footer was all the rage, I learned a bit more by having to tweak my code to earn it. imo, there are a lot of different paths to being a good developer. Personally I find scouring over the standards or some dry reference site to be about the most painful way.
- codedokode 10y agoIt is interesting that when XHTML was popular most people actually made and served HTML pages (with content type text/html) even if they had a XHTML doctype. That is why this standard was dead from the beginning. Though personally I like the idea of not displaying the page if there is any error in the code.
- olavk 10y agoMDN is nice, but the W3C standards for HTML and CSS are actually pretty easy to read.
- codedokode 10y agoI did when I was a beginner developer and wanted to understand CSS better. MDN doesn't help much if you want to understand for example how element dimensions are calculated, and W3C has a detailed description [1]. I haven't seen a better explanation yet. [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#Computing_widths_and_margins https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#Computing_widths_and...