3 ms·

https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fspecification.website%2F https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fspecification... I don't get the goal of

by _ache_ 4mo ago

https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fspecification.website%2F https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=https%3A%2F%2Fspecification... I don't get the goal of the website. It's averted as a specification, but to spec what ?! Everything is sourced to another "source of truth".

k1m 4mo ago
I saw this posted on LinkedIn[1], where the author wrote: > I got tired of pointing at six different sources to back a single recommendation. WHATWG for HTML. WCAG for accessibility. IETF for headers. schema.org for structured data. MDN, web.dev, Google Search Central for everything else. > There was no single, opinionated, platform-agnostic spec for "what does a modern website actually need to do?" > So I wrote one. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jdevalk_the-website-specification-share-7466108556518277121-bS5J/ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jdevalk_the-website-specifica...
fmajid 4mo ago
It's a compilation of best practices, and valuable as a one-stop-shop and checklist.
- nvader 4mo ago
  That's debatable. Every best-practice arose to solve a real problem within a context, and is only "best" if that context applies. If you apply best-practices without a regard for that context, you end up with a dull, cargo-culted checklist of must-haves to beat people over the head with, without deriving any true human value. The compiler of this artifact is making a judgement call[0] of what best practices apply somewhat universally (to every "decent website"). I haven't yet been convinced of their standing or judgement to make that decision. [0]: Charitably, I'm assuming they have, rather than, e.g. delegating the judgement to an opaque model's weights.
  - fmajid 4mo ago
    Some requirements have force of law, e.g. complying with GPC in California or Colorado. So do accessibility features in many jurisdictions. Some are just basic decency, like providing alt txt for images. The approach of marking items as required/recommended/optional addresses your concern. Too bad this specific checklist is LLM-generated.
- culi 4mo ago
  Sites like these have existed for a long time. I've used this one for years: https://frontendchecklist.io/rules https://frontendchecklist.io/rules I think what sets this specific one apart is its focus on "AI-readiness"
  - fmajid 4mo ago
    Apparently it was LLM-generated, so the agent was pleading for itself :-) https://github.com/jdevalk/specification.website https://github.com/jdevalk/specification.website
- fmajid 4mo ago
  Never mind, it’s LLM-generated, not the product of considered thought. The W3C should really be doing this kind of curation. Or people like those who run caniuse.com.

by _ache_ 4mo ago

k1m 4mo ago

I saw this posted on LinkedIn[1], where the author wrote: > I got tired of pointing at six different sources to back a single recommendation. WHATWG for HTML. WCAG for accessibility. IETF for headers. schema.org for structured data. MDN, web.dev, Google Search Central for everything else. > There was no single, opinionated, platform-agnostic spec for "what does a modern website actually need to do?" > So I wrote one. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jdevalk_the-website-specification-share-7466108556518277121-bS5J/ https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jdevalk_the-website-specifica...

fmajid 4mo ago

It's a compilation of best practices, and valuable as a one-stop-shop and checklist.

nvader 4mo ago
That's debatable. Every best-practice arose to solve a real problem within a context, and is only "best" if that context applies. If you apply best-practices without a regard for that context, you end up with a dull, cargo-culted checklist of must-haves to beat people over the head with, without deriving any true human value. The compiler of this artifact is making a judgement call[0] of what best practices apply somewhat universally (to every "decent website"). I haven't yet been convinced of their standing or judgement to make that decision. [0]: Charitably, I'm assuming they have, rather than, e.g. delegating the judgement to an opaque model's weights.
- fmajid 4mo ago
  Some requirements have force of law, e.g. complying with GPC in California or Colorado. So do accessibility features in many jurisdictions. Some are just basic decency, like providing alt txt for images. The approach of marking items as required/recommended/optional addresses your concern. Too bad this specific checklist is LLM-generated.
culi 4mo ago
Sites like these have existed for a long time. I've used this one for years: https://frontendchecklist.io/rules https://frontendchecklist.io/rules I think what sets this specific one apart is its focus on "AI-readiness"
- fmajid 4mo ago
  Apparently it was LLM-generated, so the agent was pleading for itself :-) https://github.com/jdevalk/specification.website https://github.com/jdevalk/specification.website
fmajid 4mo ago
Never mind, it’s LLM-generated, not the product of considered thought. The W3C should really be doing this kind of curation. Or people like those who run caniuse.com.