Posted by Chaddy2222 on 12/09/07 04:37

On Dec 9, 11:52 am, Ed Mullen <e...@edmullen.net> wrote:
> André Gillibert wrote:
> > Helpful person wrote:
>
> >> I agree with almost everything you say. I started with FrontPage and
> >> dumped it as soon I decided it was easier to learn HTML and
> >> Javascript. However, I find W3Schools a very useful on line
> >> rerference. What is wrong with it?
>
> > W3Schools provides relatively good tutorials, but they're full of
> > inaccuracies.
> > Consequently, they're not bad to be introduced to the matter, but
> > they're really bad as *reference* documents.
>
> > The good references are the W3C standards.
>
> Except that they are nigh on impenetrable by ordinary folk. Or even
> well-versed folk. A publication of standards is a great citation in an
> argument but it is a terribly bad reference on how to do anything. If
> all someone wants to do is get their boat out of their dock safely, do
> not send them to the Coast Guard specs on boating safety. It won't help
> - at all.
>
> Likewise, if all someone wants to do is learn how to wash their car in
> an eco-friendly way, don't send them to a page on how to formulate
> detergents. They don't want that. It won't help them. All it will do
> is frustrate them and make you seem like an iconoclastic asshole.
>
> So, yeah, w3chools is flawed. Ok. But it is helpful in a basic way.
> And when the user graduates from the basics you all can guide them into
> the next level of enlightenment.
>
> In the meantime? Provide a good (simple) alternative.

>
That's why HTML dog is good, it's an into to decent modern codeing
standards.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

[Back to original message]