2 ms·
W3 has a bad reputation because, at least a long while ago, it was rife with blatantly false or misleading information.
by junon 3y ago
W3 has a bad reputation because, at least a long while ago, it was rife with blatantly false or misleading information.
- rchaud 3y agoThere's literally working code demos for everything on the site that's front-end or client-side.
- int_19h 3y agoYes, and historically those code demos were often wrong in many important ways (like not working in all browsers, or insecure). They are much better now but reputation is hard to recover.
- naillo 3y agoThat must have been like 12 years ago or more at least because in my career I don't have much memory of feeling betrayed by the information on their site.
- raincole 3y agoIt's exactly 12 years ago. I started learning JavaScript in summer 2011 and I remember w3school was often misleading.
- junon 3y agoYes some people have been doing web development for more than 12 years (: https://web.archive.org/web/20110412103745/http://w3fools.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20110412103745/http://w3fools.co...
- rchaud 3y agoWouldn't that have been the case everywhere before JS browser support standardized to ES 2015 and above?
- int_19h 3y agoIt's a question of presentation. Back then (and to be clear, I'm talking about 00s here) the correct way was to point out that something might not even be doable in cross-browser way at all, and listing the proprietary features that'd let you do it in specific browsers while clearly labeling them as proprietary. Quality websites would do that, while w3schools and the likes would just give you the snippet for (usually) IE. Worse yet, in many cases they would keep suggesting the old proprietary approach even after a new standardized way of implementing something showed up.
- hgsgm 3y agoCross-platform demos?