5 ms·
Currently, there are zero results when searching these comments for "specification". It's shocking how few programmers nowadays refer to the source material. Du
by subsection1h 6y ago
Currently, there are zero results when searching these comments for "specification". It's shocking how few programmers nowadays refer to the source material. During discussions on the CIWA newsgroups back in the 90s, everyone referred to specifications, DTDs and RFCs. On HN in 2020, regurgitations are considered the "gold standard", and conversations like this one include dozens of references to W3Schools and zero references to W3C. Sad.
- jolux 6y agoProgramming has grown enormously as a discipline since the 90s (not to mention the tools of the web themselves) and the specs are kind of a pain to read. I read them when I want an answer to an extremely specific question (what does the spec say about internal implementations of JavaScript objects?) but when I want things like API overviews it’s just faster to have high-quality secondary sources.
- cesaref 6y agoBack in the 90s it was assumed that specs would be written in a specification language, and we'd be able to prove our software by automated testing using the pre/post conditions. We'd mainly spend our time writing UML and thinking back to the bad old days when writing software was using old fashioned text editors like vim and emacs, and we'd be wondering how those fools managed to get anything done. Meanwhile back in reality, it's the same old.
- jolux 6y agoHaha. I was only born in ‘98 so I guess I’ll never know the feeling. Proud Emacs user myself.
- di4na 6y agoI regularly try to go read the specs. They are not built for consumption by end users and it shows. They are mostly legal documents describing all the edge cases. They have ton of fluff. Near no usable example. Are super hard to know which browser has what. And i could keep going. They are simply built for a different target. And it shows.
- Santosh83 6y agoIt's like the difference between textbooks and primary literature when it comes to science. When you're researching something, you consult primary literature, but when you merely want to learn or refresh a subject, a good textbook is much more practical. The same relationship holds for MDN versus WHATWG specs. The latter are more useful when you're implementing parts of the web, or at least dig below the layer that one needs to know to just code websites.
- zerocrates 6y agoAmong the many things MDN provides is really extensive and accurate information about what the browsers actually do, which the specifications could never tell you. Hearkening back to the good old days is nice and all, but referencing the W3C is an interesting choice in a world where they've long since practically, and more recently officially, ceded HTML and the DOM to WHATWG.
- tinus_hn 6y agoW3C got the web stuck in committee hell. When the whole ‘HTML5’ thing happened they were left by the wayside, completely irrelevant.
- detaro 6y agoLots of web standards work still happens in W3C - the web is more than just HTML.
- driverdan 6y agoW3C and WHATWG specs don't include any browser-specific information. They don't tell you what has actually been implemented, which browsers support what, etc. They're great as a reference for someone who really needs to know the spec but not good as an everyday lookup how to do something resource.