6 ms·

I find mozilla developer network (mdn) blows away w3schools in all ways. e.g. compare these two for CSS "display": http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_display_vi

I find mozilla developer network (mdn) blows away w3schools in all ways. e.g. compare these two for CSS "display": http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_display_visibility.asp http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_display_visibility.asp https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/display https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/display MDN is more detailed, more up to date, and says in which browsers it works or doesn't work. w3schools doesn't even have a list of all possible values. Or for JS "getElementByID": http://www.w3schools.com/jsref/met_document_getelementbyid.asp http://www.w3schools.com/jsref/met_document_getelementbyid.a... https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/document.getElementById https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/document.ge... MDN just always explains more details and edge cases, and has much more browser compatibility info (including for mobile).

state 13y ago
THIS! The thing that really ought to replace W3Schools is MDN.
- cpncrunch 13y ago
  Really? I just did a quick comparison, and w3schools was much better than MDN. Try looking for info on the 'required' attribute of the input tag. w3schools has all the attributes in a compact table making it easy to find the attribute you're looking for at a glance, whereas MDN has a big long list. In w3schools you can then click on the 'required' attribute to get more info about it and see which browsers it works on. In MDN there is no info on browser compatibility in the 'required' description - you have to scroll down to ANOTHER table (there is not even a link to it) to see what browser it is compatible with! Come on, even back in web 1.0 we had links to stuff! The reason that w3schools is at the top of the search results is that more people find it useful that MDN. Perhaps it isn't as cool with the hipsters as MDN, but for people trying to get things done w3schools is more useful in my opinion.
  - state 13y ago
    I guess it's really just a matter of personal preference. I switched to adding 'MDN' to my search queries out of gut frustration with having to parse through the W3 pages. I think the comment about 'hipsters' is a little shallow, but it's interesting that this is so divided. I really assumed that HN would be completely in the tank for MDN.
    - malyk 13y ago
      I've never heard of mdn before this thread somehow. But w3schools is perfect for looking up the things I tend to look up (mostly CSS or HTML attributes) and it's really easy to parse. Plus it's always the first google result for me.
      - riquito 13y ago
        What do you use then as "official" reference for Javascript?
      - panzi 13y ago
        You never used MDN? How long are you developing web sites?
        dinkumthinkum 13y ago
        That's just not really needed, it's so elitist.
        malyk 13y ago
        Since 2001. Stackoverflow seems to be the place where my JS searches lead me.
        cpncrunch 13y ago
        I've been developing websites since 1996 myself, and MDN hasn't really been on my radar for an html reference. I did use it extensively back in 2009 when I was doing work with <canvas>, and back then MDN didn't really have a general html reference. I think it's only in the last couple of years that MDN has really developed their reference documentation. So, if you've always used MDN you really must be a young whippersnapper :) I think MDN has an advantage in that they've only really been around since HTML5 has become standardized, whereas w3schools has had to deal with the changing standards of html4/xhtml/html5.
  - freshhawk 13y ago
    Perhaps more useful if you already know enough to know when to ignore the awful or wrong parts of w3schools. Damn those "hipsters" and their preference for valuing getting a real useful answer over an easy to read wrong answer!
    - cpncrunch 13y ago
      Please give some examples of the "awful" or "wrong" parts.
      - timmclean 13y ago
        w3fools.com had, at one point in time, a long list of "awful" and "wrong" parts: http://web.archive.org/web/20110117085131/http://w3fools.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20110117085131/http://w3fools.com...
        cpncrunch 13y ago
        I had a look through quite a few of these, and they all seem to be fixed now. Also quite a few of the things mentioned are opinions. There were also a few instances where I noticed w3fools was wrong. Anyway, I see why w3fools decided to remove the list of now-fixed "errors". Thanks for wasting 15 minutes of my time - I'll bill you later :) PS, your website fails w3c validation.
colmvp 13y ago
"I find mozilla developer network (mdn) blows away w3schools in all ways." Couldn't disagree more. Don't get me wrong, MDN has way better information but take yourself through the eyes of someone who just needs a quick reminder or sample of how to do something. I'll use a 1280x800 screen sample since that's a common size. Compare this: http://i.imgur.com/Tvg04Pr.png http://i.imgur.com/Tvg04Pr.png with this: http://i.imgur.com/gG7BIJF.png http://i.imgur.com/gG7BIJF.png Above the fold, one is a very quick and easy way for users to copy code and modify it for their purposes. It's also stupidly simple language. To make a box shadow, do this. The other has undisputedly better technical data but forces you have to scroll below to just see a sample code. And most new coders wouldn't understand how to read their syntax section. On top of that, w3schools lays out values in tables whereas MDN has paragraphs of copy. By no means am I arguing that MDN doesn't have more detail, but I can definitely see why W3Schools is still used by those who know better.
gabemart 13y ago
>MDN just always explains more details and edge cases, and has much more browser compatibility info (including for mobile). It does so at the expense of speed of understanding. Better for some people, worse than others. As a speedy reminder of syntax or form, w3schools seems superior.
__david__ 13y ago
I'm also a huge fan of MDN. Fun fact, if you use Duck Duck Go you can add "!mdn" to constrain your search to just MDN. It's now my #1 way of searching for HTML tag properties and CSS syntax.
- alxndr 13y ago
  You can do that with Firefox's bookmarks (last I looked) and Chrome's "search engines" (and there's probably something in Opera or Safari) using any URL you want, %s in the URL will be replaced with your search.

state 13y ago

THIS! The thing that really ought to replace W3Schools is MDN.

cpncrunch 13y ago
Really? I just did a quick comparison, and w3schools was much better than MDN. Try looking for info on the 'required' attribute of the input tag. w3schools has all the attributes in a compact table making it easy to find the attribute you're looking for at a glance, whereas MDN has a big long list. In w3schools you can then click on the 'required' attribute to get more info about it and see which browsers it works on. In MDN there is no info on browser compatibility in the 'required' description - you have to scroll down to ANOTHER table (there is not even a link to it) to see what browser it is compatible with! Come on, even back in web 1.0 we had links to stuff! The reason that w3schools is at the top of the search results is that more people find it useful that MDN. Perhaps it isn't as cool with the hipsters as MDN, but for people trying to get things done w3schools is more useful in my opinion.
- state 13y ago
  I guess it's really just a matter of personal preference. I switched to adding 'MDN' to my search queries out of gut frustration with having to parse through the W3 pages. I think the comment about 'hipsters' is a little shallow, but it's interesting that this is so divided. I really assumed that HN would be completely in the tank for MDN.
  - malyk 13y ago
    I've never heard of mdn before this thread somehow. But w3schools is perfect for looking up the things I tend to look up (mostly CSS or HTML attributes) and it's really easy to parse. Plus it's always the first google result for me.
    - riquito 13y ago
      What do you use then as "official" reference for Javascript?
    - panzi 13y ago
      You never used MDN? How long are you developing web sites?
      - dinkumthinkum 13y ago
        That's just not really needed, it's so elitist.
      - malyk 13y ago
        Since 2001. Stackoverflow seems to be the place where my JS searches lead me.
      - cpncrunch 13y ago
        I've been developing websites since 1996 myself, and MDN hasn't really been on my radar for an html reference. I did use it extensively back in 2009 when I was doing work with <canvas>, and back then MDN didn't really have a general html reference. I think it's only in the last couple of years that MDN has really developed their reference documentation. So, if you've always used MDN you really must be a young whippersnapper :) I think MDN has an advantage in that they've only really been around since HTML5 has become standardized, whereas w3schools has had to deal with the changing standards of html4/xhtml/html5.
- freshhawk 13y ago
  Perhaps more useful if you already know enough to know when to ignore the awful or wrong parts of w3schools. Damn those "hipsters" and their preference for valuing getting a real useful answer over an easy to read wrong answer!
  - cpncrunch 13y ago
    Please give some examples of the "awful" or "wrong" parts.
    - timmclean 13y ago
      w3fools.com had, at one point in time, a long list of "awful" and "wrong" parts: http://web.archive.org/web/20110117085131/http://w3fools.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20110117085131/http://w3fools.com...
      - cpncrunch 13y ago
        I had a look through quite a few of these, and they all seem to be fixed now. Also quite a few of the things mentioned are opinions. There were also a few instances where I noticed w3fools was wrong. Anyway, I see why w3fools decided to remove the list of now-fixed "errors". Thanks for wasting 15 minutes of my time - I'll bill you later :) PS, your website fails w3c validation.

colmvp 13y ago

"I find mozilla developer network (mdn) blows away w3schools in all ways." Couldn't disagree more. Don't get me wrong, MDN has way better information but take yourself through the eyes of someone who just needs a quick reminder or sample of how to do something. I'll use a 1280x800 screen sample since that's a common size. Compare this: http://i.imgur.com/Tvg04Pr.png http://i.imgur.com/Tvg04Pr.png with this: http://i.imgur.com/gG7BIJF.png http://i.imgur.com/gG7BIJF.png Above the fold, one is a very quick and easy way for users to copy code and modify it for their purposes. It's also stupidly simple language. To make a box shadow, do this. The other has undisputedly better technical data but forces you have to scroll below to just see a sample code. And most new coders wouldn't understand how to read their syntax section. On top of that, w3schools lays out values in tables whereas MDN has paragraphs of copy. By no means am I arguing that MDN doesn't have more detail, but I can definitely see why W3Schools is still used by those who know better.

gabemart 13y ago

>MDN just always explains more details and edge cases, and has much more browser compatibility info (including for mobile). It does so at the expense of speed of understanding. Better for some people, worse than others. As a speedy reminder of syntax or form, w3schools seems superior.

__david__ 13y ago

I'm also a huge fan of MDN. Fun fact, if you use Duck Duck Go you can add "!mdn" to constrain your search to just MDN. It's now my #1 way of searching for HTML tag properties and CSS syntax.

alxndr 13y ago
You can do that with Firefox's bookmarks (last I looked) and Chrome's "search engines" (and there's probably something in Opera or Safari) using any URL you want, %s in the URL will be replaced with your search.