Slashdot Mirror


Apple, Microsoft, Google, Others Join Hands To Form WebPlatform.org

hypnosec writes "Apple, Adobe, Google, HP, Microsoft and many others have joined forces and launched a new resource – the Web Platform in a bid to create a 'definitive resource' for all open Web technologies. The companies have come together to provide developers with a single source of all the latest information about HTML5, CSS3, WebGL, SVG and other Web standards. The platform will also offer tips and best practices on web development as well as web technologies. 'We are an open community of developers building resources for a better web, regardless of brand, browser or platform,' notes the WebPlatform site."

94 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. huh by etash · · Score: 1, Funny

    this site seems like the apple maps (in analogy) version of w3schools.

    1. Re:huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      w3schools is sort of terrible. I think you mean MDN.

    2. Re:huh by etash · · Score: 2
    3. Re:huh by Desler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? A brand new website is not as comprehensive as one that has been around for 13 years? Shocking!!

    4. Re:huh by BZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except with any luck unlike w3schools it won't have incorrect information on it because people will be able to fix it like any other wiki.

      The big problem with w3schools is that there's all sorts of mistakes on there and they won't fix things if you point out the problems.

    5. Re:huh by etash · · Score: 2

      what's _really_ shocking is that a brand new website which promises to be COMPLETE AND FULL REFERENCE of platform X, a website not done by AMATEURS but by the biggest companies around with hundreds of billion of dollars available in their pockets, goes live incomplete and unfinished.

    6. Re:huh by Desler · · Score: 2

      No, that's pretty unshocking. Documentation takes time to write. It'll get more comprehensive with time.

    7. Re:huh by etash · · Score: 1

      I know, I know, it's not the first time that companies rush unfinished products to consumers.

    8. Re:huh by etash · · Score: 1

      that's my point: "it won't", not "it doesn't".

    9. Re:huh by rs79 · · Score: 2

      What he said. Holy crap...

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    10. Re:huh by BZ · · Score: 1

      If you see incorrect things ... it's a wiki. Fix them. I certainly plan to, which I can't do with w3schools!

    11. Re:huh by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Companies have hundreds of billions of dollars because they keep it in their pockets, well, at least in offshore tax haven bank accounts. Spending it on stuff that doesn't make money in one form or another, is not in their playbook, forget charity washing and green washing, that's called PR. Some of the players will be there to obstruct for their advantage, to pre-patent and leverage standards in their favour and to break it if it proves disadvantageous. When normal everyday people release via creative commons, other normal everyday people can readily use it. When mega-corps release via creative commons they can still quite readily economically beat normal everyday people to death with lawyers long before normal everyday prove their case in court. In a 'they who patent first wins world' when 'they' can spend enough on lawyers to win regardless of whose idea it really was, little people showcasing their ideas for free makes little on no sense in an environment created by corporations for corporations.

      Make no mistake Google, M$ and Apple are all publicly guilty of stealing other peoples ideas, patenting them and claiming them as their own, liars and cheats to a man or woman. So giving away your ideas on their web site might not be the best way to go.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Uh huh... by undeadbill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll believe that when I see their products running under Free or Open BSD. Unless "any" is really a very narrow definition of specific Linux Distros, MS Windows, and OS X.

    1. Re:Uh huh... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Yes, they are referring to operating systems that are actually relevant to the average computer user. The operating systems vying for the last .01% of market share are hardly of note.

    2. Re:Uh huh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      BSD is real freedom, for users and developers. Take the code, do what you want.

    3. Re:Uh huh... by jamstar7 · · Score: 1

      I'll believe that when I see their products running under Free or Open BSD. Unless "any" is really a very narrow definition of Windows 8 and OS X.

      FTFY.

      Cue 'augmenting the standards' in 5... 4... 3...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    4. Re:Uh huh... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      So long as said products are open source, isn't the standing rule in the FOSS community "go port it yourself if you need it"?

    5. Re:Uh huh... by Desler · · Score: 1

      Yes and the person was whining specifically about their products not being ported to some niche OSes. That was what I responded, too. Yes, you are correct as well.

    6. Re:Uh huh... by HarrySquatter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which some people are perfectly fine with. Isn't it better that these companies use mature, well-debugged BSD code rather than rolling their own shit that is usually many times worse because they were going to avoid the GPL anyway?

    7. Re:Uh huh... by blade8086 · · Score: 1

      There are various 'flavors' of the BSD license -

      Original did require attribution, and then subsequent revisions did not -

      from my observation, most current BSD based projects use the attribution free ones,
      and even older ones, if active/relavent, are often relicensing under the 2 clause one - see also:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

    8. Re:Uh huh... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I thought Firefox worked under those platforms. If it does, then the HTML5 stuff they're promoting should work fine. Or am I misunderstanding your objection?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  3. w3schools by vlm · · Score: 2

    So its basically an alpha reimplementation of w3schools?

    http://www.w3schools.com/

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:w3schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But W3Schools is painful. No, really, painful.
      Any time I google for anything, I avoid it like the plague now.
      I'd sooner read a damn blogspot post than it.

      And this isn't even getting in to the (inconsistent) website design itself. That is far worse.

      Yeah, it ain't the worst resource, but polished turd etc.
      A turd might be filled with information on the species that crapped it out, but it is still a turd.

    2. Re:w3schools by vlm · · Score: 1

      They are not a "definitive resource" by any stretch of imagination.

      which w3schools or webplatform?

      Go to webplatform main page, click on html5, get "alpha" warning, a list of 9 issue/error tags, scroll down to "You can help documenting the list of HTML and related elements." and click on the link at the end "list of html and related elements" and get "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference.".

      I guess the general feeling I'm getting is W3schools is proven to be operate at "somewhat less than reference quality" level, and the new shiny is currently orders of magnitude worse than w3schools but hope springs eternal and maybe someday it'll be far better... someday... maybe...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  4. It's a trap, right? by crazyjj · · Score: 4, Funny

    Surely to get those companies together, there must be some nefarious agenda afoot.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:It's a trap, right? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Surely to get those companies together, there must be some nefarious agenda afoot.

      The footer logos, the testimonials section, etc. all lack Apple. But then they're on the list.

      I'd guess they joined at the last minute. Maybe they were a target at one point? Which would be ironic as the pre iOS-SDK days were all about "no native apps".

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:It's a trap, right? by skegg · · Score: 1

      Well, some of these companies were recently accused of collaborating in other areas as well.

  5. actually, it's web 3.0 by poetmatt · · Score: 3, Funny

    Actually, get ready! it's going to be web 3.0! That means it'll be incompatible with web 2.0.

    1. Re:actually, it's web 3.0 by jhoegl · · Score: 2

      Will it come with a start button?

    2. Re:actually, it's web 3.0 by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      no but it'll come with a clickthrough EULA for the icon grid...

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  6. This is needed because ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Apple, Adobe, Google, HP, Microsoft and many others have joined forces and launched a new resource – the Web Platform in a bid to create a 'definitive resource' for all open Web technologies"

    That's awesome, because without explicit corporate collusion, we'd never have ... a ... what? a search engine for referencing 'open' technologies?

    Not that they haven't contributed (some more than others) open source, but ... why exactly do we need the corporate technical powerhouses to create a definitive resource on open technologies? What will they provide by corporate committee that open source isn't providing now? ... or is this one of those redefinitions of 'open' that hasn't got anything to do with open source?

    1. Re:This is needed because ... by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

      Not that they haven't contributed (some more than others) open source, but ... why exactly do we need the corporate technical powerhouses to create a definitive resource on open technologies?

      Funny that you dropped the "web" out of open web technologies. The reason they are important is because they are the main implementors of the open web technologies at issue.

      What will they provide by corporate committee that open source isn't providing now?

      The intent is to provide quality documentation, not implementations. In many cases, the implementations are provided as open source (in some cases, by the same companies involved in this project for informational resources related to the technologies.)

      or is this one of those redefinitions of 'open' that hasn't got anything to do with open source?

      It has nothing to do with open source, but its not a redefinition, either. "Open" in "open web technologies" is used to mean "open specification" rather than "open source", which is a fairly common existing use, not a "redefinition."

    2. Re:This is needed because ... by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not that they haven't contributed (some more than others) to open source projects, but ... why exactly do we need the corporate technical powerhouses to create a definitive resource on open technologies?

      Because together those companies create much of the software and hardware that is interpreting open web protocols and formats. This is hopefully a step towards recognizing that proprietary technologies that only work on one vendor's platform are detrimental rather than beneficial for lock in. Maybe the next time you notice browser C is interpreting that HTML tag differently than everyone else there will be a place to point to that the maker of browser C has their name up as a collaborator.

    3. Re:This is needed because ... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      That's awesome, because without explicit corporate collusion

      How is this 'collusion'? What are you implying they are actually doing?

      but ... why exactly do we need the corporate technical powerhouses to create a definitive resource on open technologies?

      Because by and large they are the biggest implementors of those technologies, it makes sense that they do it over groups who's products most people probably never use.

      What will they provide by corporate committee that open source isn't providing now?

      I guess we'll just have to wait and see, of course nobody is forcing you to use it, if you don't see any reason to use it then don't.

      or is this one of those redefinitions of 'open' that hasn't got anything to do with open source?

      No, the word 'open' is not tied to 'open source', you don't have to redefine it to use it in a context that doesn't pertain to open source.

    4. Re:This is needed because ... by fermion · · Score: 1
      Despite what todays XKCD , we were really in place where a lack of corporate cohesion was about to lead us to a web that only worked with IE. Todays web has lead to a world where an always on connection means that one does not need MS Office, Bing is a reasonable alternative to Google, and Apple will either the get maps right or bring enough traffic to other map agents that they will.

      Due to litigation and competition, we have an much more open web. We have many more options for cheap offline storage. Unlike the time when MS was about to control all our lives, we know have a vigorous interaction between powerful firms. They are not friends, and hopefully they never will be, but there know the values of standards.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    5. Re:This is needed because ... by Sir+Homer · · Score: 1

      Producing and documenting open technical and process standards is one exception where corporate collusion is not only acceptable, it is often encouraged.

    6. Re:This is needed because ... by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      That's awesome, because without explicit corporate collusion

      How is this 'collusion'? What are you implying they are actually doing?

      They are colluding to provide comprehensive information on web technologies in order to make it easier to develop web sites and applications, thus allowing them to indirectly make more money. Those fiends.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    7. Re:This is needed because ... by Requiem18th · · Score: 1

      The notorious abcense of Mozilla from this "platform" is enough to suspect colusion. Each one of these companies controls their own OS. Mozilla is THE vendor.agnostic, crossplatform browser of choice, and the main diver of standarization in the web. Why in the world aren't they part of this?

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    8. Re:This is needed because ... by dhammond · · Score: 1

      Actually, Mozilla is signed on:
      http://www1.webplatform.org/stewards/mozilla/

      Which IS very important since Mozilla arguably has the best current documentation wiki.

    9. Re:This is needed because ... by gizmod · · Score: 1

      Are you blind? Go to www.webplatform.org Scroll to bottom. Yep mozilla right there with the rest of them.

    10. Re:This is needed because ... by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 1

      For example, documentation of HTML video doesn't mention the difficulties inflicted upon it by different encoding policies by different competing companies.

      That's the whole point here. None of these companies has a monopoly on Web video and they all have stakes in what protocols and formats are used. Apple wants something hardware supported to make their mobile devices have longer battery life. Google wants something that they can use across a large array of phones and that won't require them to re-encode the youtube library of video into multiple formats. Mozilla wants something that will let them avoid patent issues. MS and Apple both want something that can be wrapped in DRM to keep mainstream content providers on board.

      So we can have protocol wars as we have for the last few years which divide the Web up into fiefdoms and cause lots of user headaches, none of which actually helps any of these companies, or they can try to collaborate and come up with a solution that will work for everyone and hopefully reduce the barrier between their respective solutions.

      Documentation by corporate committee is unreliable because at any point it can be corrupted.

      Why would they? Unless one of the players gains dominance, screwing with documentation or being incompatible just hurts that one company more than everyone else. Five years ago Adobe was betting on locking everyone into Flash and MS planned to leverage their desktop OS monopoly to force every to use WMA. Apple wanted nothing to do with either, even if it made them incompatible with the mainstream. Now, they all stand to gain by playing nice, for now.

  7. Strange by De+Lemming · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the bottom of the front page are 9 logos, Apple is not one of them. On the Stewards page are 10 organisations/companies, including Apple. But Apple is the only one without a link to a description/statement of the company. They seem to be the neglected stepchild here?

    And Slasdot puts them first in the title, and categorizes the article in the Apple section :-)

    1. Re:Strange by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apple and Google are currently suing each other over whose logo will be placed higher than the other.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      After asking in the IRC chat, Doug Schepers (shepazu) responded by saying that Apple was contributing but had requested that their logo not appear on the front page.

    3. Re:Strange by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except it's in the Apple category on slashdot, even though the official website doesn't mention Apple *anywhere at all* except for a single link to "#" with the label "Apple" on a single hard to find page (not linked from anywhere in the homepage).

      There are lots of places, like the footer of the main site, that list all the other companies but not Apple.

      There is definitely something weird going on. It certainly shouldn't be in the "Apple" section of slashdot, and the article headline shouldn't list three sponsors (including Apple) while ignoring all the other corporations who actually are officially behind it.

  8. Unimplemented APIs to encourage native apps by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't tell whether it's malice or incompetence. Is it likely that the developers of web browsers bundled with operating systems are leaving certain APIs unimplemented on purpose to encourage the development of OS-specific native apps? I'm talking about SNI, HTML5 offline manifests (with a quota suitable for video), HTML5 local storage (also with a quota suitable for video), WebGL, the video element with the WebM codec, the file API, and getUserMedia. Web apps won't replace native apps until web developers can rely on most of these.

    1. Re:Unimplemented APIs to encourage native apps by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      Mod parent up!

      No one sees the danger to this. PCMag does see an anology to webkit and IE 6. W3C is coming out with an HTML 5 spec that is not the same as WHatG. I agree with the W3C approach of splitting up HTML 5 into 5 and 5.1 and same with CSS 3 and 3.1 but still it is a problem. WIth pressure from sites like www.html5test.com that test cutting edge features you have browsers using proprietary implementations and then bashing the others for being behind the times even though half that shit is not even in the W3C spec!

      I can imagine with mobile units taken over that webkit will be the next trident as websites in 10 years will be targeted just for that and than have scripts for legacy w3c like in the dark days. Worse the APIs will be IOS or Android only.

    2. Re:Unimplemented APIs to encourage native apps by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Oh, come on. HTML5 offline manifests and local storage work positively flawlessly compared to contentEditable support, undo management, copy-and-paste handling, DOM Ranges....

      These days, a good day of web app development is one in which I discover fewer than one critical browser bug every two or three hours of coding. I won't tell you what a bad day looks like because I don't want to crush anyone's soul....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  9. Google, the poster child for beta by tepples · · Score: 2

    what's _really_ shocking is that a brand new website [...] done [...] by the biggest companies around with hundreds of billion of dollars available in their pockets, goes live incomplete and unfinished.

    Not shocking. Google is part of this effort, and it's the poster child for taking a "beta" version live and tweaking it later.

  10. This is needed because ... by quietwalker · · Score: 2

    (this time not posted as AC, so it shows up ... )

    "Apple, Adobe, Google, HP, Microsoft and many others have joined forces and launched a new resource – the Web Platform in a bid to create a 'definitive resource' for all open Web technologies"

    That's awesome, because without explicit corporate collusion, we'd never have ... a ... what? a search engine for referencing 'open' technologies?

    Not that they haven't contributed (some more than others) to open source projects, but ... why exactly do we need the corporate technical powerhouses to create a definitive resource on open technologies? What will they provide by corporate committee that open source isn't providing now? ... or is this one of those redefinitions of 'open' that hasn't got anything to do with open source?

  11. Here's a free best practice for them by jb_nizet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Underline the damn links (which are one of the main reasons why the web was invented). Undecorated links, using a color which is very close to the normal text color, makes them indistinguishible from normal text for even lightly color-blind people like me, and like 10% of the male population.

    1. Re:Here's a free best practice for them by Hentes · · Score: 2

      In Opera you can use a custom css file with !important declarations to modify the appearance of certain elements (like links) on every page.

    2. Re:Here's a free best practice for them by supersloshy · · Score: 1

      From the sounds of it, that should work with any other custom style sheets thing, like Stylish, right? That actually sounds rather helpful from an accessibility standpoint (if a little bit annoying to set up). Still, it shouldn't be hard to make good-looking links on a webpage.

      --
      "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
    3. Re:Here's a free best practice for them by epp_b · · Score: 1

      Although I quite agree with you, they don't necessarily need to be underlined, just significantly differentiated from norrmal text.

    4. Re:Here's a free best practice for them by exomondo · · Score: 1

      you mean like /. does in the comment header ;)

    5. Re:Here's a free best practice for them by rs79 · · Score: 1

      Disagree. Links are underlined and a different color (to differentiate from plain underline)

      Un-underlined links don't look like links and I'd guess at best 0.0004% of the world does that.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    6. Re:Here's a free best practice for them by crywalt · · Score: 2

      Removing link underlining was something a lot of Web designers couldn't wait for, and every one I know (designers and programmers) was thrilled when it was finally implemented. Turning off underlining is one of the first things I did with any Web browser the first time I ran it. (I'm not sure if I've had to do it recently.) It's one of the first things I do when designing any site and I check it in IE and see IE still underlines links by default. (Also removing the blue border from around linked images.) Underlines are terrible. Underlined links always remind me of 1996.

    7. Re:Here's a free best practice for them by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      CSS was designed to let you specify a user stylesheet with 'important' properties which override the site. So you could force links to always be underlined if you want. It's a pity that mainstream browsers do not provide a simple way to configure this.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  12. Riiiight, and the real reason is ... ? by epp_b · · Score: 1

    So, four major players in the tech market, at least three of whom have quite clearly demonstrated a very vested interest in closedness, are "joining forces for openness"?

    OK, what's the hidden agenda?

    1. Re:Riiiight, and the real reason is ... ? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      By providing decent documentation in an easy-to-find place they are making it easier to develop web sites and web apps. More web sites mean more developers, more search revenue etc. I'd say that they are trying to get bigger slices by growing the pie.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  13. I'm confused... by ClaraBow · · Score: 1

    "Apple, Adobe, Google, HP, Microsoft and many others have joined forces" -- I must have woken up in a alternate planet! This is beautiful man! I think I feel a little tear coming.... ;-)

  14. PR or Free Labor... maybe both by El+Fantasmo · · Score: 1

    This is either:

    1. A PR stunt to appeal to those who don't know much about open source things in general. Now the big tech companies look like they're doing something benevolent and giving to society.

    or

    2. A place for unsuspecting people to post code or ideas and have them freely adopted by the big tech companies, who will in turn charge you for THEIR enhancements and innovations.

  15. Do you know what alpha means? by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

    I was talking features, not design. this thing is missing stuff

    I would think that the big box at the main Docs page explaining that the docs subsite was in alpha would have, you know, explained that.

    1. Re:Do you know what alpha means? by etash · · Score: 1

      i do. it means rushing an unfinished product.

    2. Re:Do you know what alpha means? by mrbester · · Score: 2

      Never even got that far. Saw the abortion that is the front page on my phone and bailed immediately.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    3. Re:Do you know what alpha means? by denmarkw00t · · Score: 1

      i do. it means rushing an unfinished free source of information.

      ftfy

  16. IRC? by juventasone · · Score: 1

    This site is all about uber-modern web standards and their chat protocol of choice? IRC. Awesome.

    1. Re:IRC? by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      heh... I still IRC through the Telnet client...

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  17. Re:Fuck the web! by vlm · · Score: 1

    Is it just a Slashdot thing? (doesn't seem to exist elsewhere as far as I can tell)

    Hardly. I was hearing it in the American South (as opposed to South America) in the early 90s.

    Think of "mouth hanging open with amazement" for something not particularly amazing. Exclamation of "wow" at a demonstration of the blink tag followed by mouth breathing.

    As Americans have gotten fatter it also seems to be used for "too fat to propel the walmart cart at walking speed without mouth hanging open" but this is a rare use. Also rare use in the poser community, as in eats 5 bags of cheetos per day thus fat thus has to mouth breathe, but it takes a bit more than cheeto eating to be a real web dev or real linux dev or whatever. Some "snot nosed kid" analogy thus has to mouth breathe, "kid" not necessarily meaning young, but always meaning noob.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  18. Got My Hopes Up by crywalt · · Score: 1

    The headline got my hopes up for a second. I thought for a moment that the companies had gotten together to build a new Web standard. Instead they're just re-documenting the old, broken standards, and presumably all the half-assed implementations every Web developer is forced to wrangle with just to get "Hello, world" up and running. "Looks fine in Firefox but IE6 displays ', ', IE7 indents it halfway across the page, and Chrome is showing '72 101 108 108 111 44 32 119 111 114 108 100'." "Have you tried it in Opera? How about on the iPad?" "WAT"

    1. Re:Got My Hopes Up by crywalt · · Score: 1

      And, amusingly, /. won't display the Cyrillic characters I put in for IE6 for humor purposes.

    2. Re:Got My Hopes Up by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      So we would have 3 incompatible standards. W3C, WhatG, and now this?

      Chrome is making the same mistakes as IE 6. If WhatG standardizes in HTML 5 the web-kit way, and W3C announces HTML 5 and HTML 5.1 which have different arguments for the CSS then what? ... of course being slashdot they will blame IE for being incompatible and same with Firefox.

    3. Re:Got My Hopes Up by crywalt · · Score: 1

      I would hope -- xkcd cartoons aside -- that a truly good rebuilding of the Web from the ground up -- what CSS should have been, had it been done right -- would be attractive enough to enough people that it would eventually take over. I mean, that's why the Web took off in the first place. I realize this is unlikely.

  19. Facebook admits it by foma84 · · Score: 1

    "Facebook - A community-driven documentation center [...]"
    (as seen on the Stewards page)

  20. JavaScript and PHP documentation is missing by Goodyob · · Score: 1

    ...on a site about web development Truly this is a parody of a documentation website, if anything

    1. Re:JavaScript and PHP documentation is missing by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      ...on a site about web development

      Truly this is a parody of a documentation website, if anything

      http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/javascript

      javascript is ther. dunno why the fuck they would include php since it's out of scope..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  21. I really don't get the anti-w3schools.com snobs by elloGov · · Score: 4, Informative

    I seriously question the web expertise of anyone who snubs w3schools as a "terrible", "painful" resource for web development. If you are looking for a copy-paste reference of best practices, w3schools isn't it. Nor is w3schools.com a definitive guide. However, there isn't a resource that is more user-friendly than w3schools on many of the web topics.
    http://www.w3schools.com/jsref/obj_location.asp V https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/DOM/window.location

    Moreover, w3schools.com does a fantastic job in maintaining the big picture of web development by separating its components in its reference pages; DOM, JavaScript, CSS, HTML, etc..
    Anyone stating otherwise is full of it. The tutorials, layout, and "Try it Out' execution environment are quick and fantastic for those not interested in reading a blog. 95% of the reference needed w3schools.com has. The other 5%, as a seasoned web developer you should see blog entries, quirksmode, msdn, mdn, etc. and/or investigate in an execution environment such as firebug.
    The subtle nuances, nit-picky details, over-simplification, or the lack of mention of say "getBoundingClientRect" doesn't invalidate the awesomeness of w3schools, and it certainly doesn't make it suck. Mastering a topic shouldn't turn you into a snob.
    I strongly recommend w3schools.com to anyone who wants to get a good grasp of web development without diving into the advanced topics or anyone who wants a quick reference look up.

    Just my two cents!

    1. Re:I really don't get the anti-w3schools.com snobs by Bogtha · · Score: 2

      I don't see how a tutorial site can be considered user-friendly if it teaches incorrect things and bad practices. That's pretty damn hostile to beginners, even if it's sugar-coated enough to make it not immediately apparent. I and many others complained loudly and tried many times over the course of years to correct their glaring mistakes and things like code that would only work in Internet Explorer and it all fell on deaf ears. They aren't making a good faith effort in teaching people, the tutorials are just a marketing vehicle for their worthless certs. This is abusive and predatory to beginners and they should not be recommended by anybody.

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    2. Re:I really don't get the anti-w3schools.com snobs by Tchaik · · Score: 2

      I seriously question the web expertise of anyone who snubs w3schools as a "terrible", "painful" resource for web development. However, there isn't a resource that is more user-friendly than w3schools on many of the web topics.

      I seriously question the web expertise of anyone who snubs w3schools snobs. I'll note that experts don't need user-friendly, they need accuracy, both as a reference level and as a guide for best practices. Check http://w3fools.com/ again...

    3. Re:I really don't get the anti-w3schools.com snobs by elloGov · · Score: 1

      OK, you are just asking for an ego beating.

      Congrats on being a glorified janitor, clearly a big ego booster for you to fix shitty outsourced code and jump ship.
      "Actual professionals" know that unless you are building the next web browser, standards are standards and that browser implementation is king when it comes to building high-throughput responsive web trading platforms, implement openId/oAuth APIs, cross-document/domain messaging solution web APIs. This professional makes lots of dollars doing this. This professional is humble enough to look up reference on w3schools.com and see its usefulness in teaching newcomers. Furthermore, this professional doesn't jerk off to his superior knowledge, but rather shares his knowledge and mentors those in need.

      When fixing bad HTML or rewriting a crappy JavaScript function doesn't do it for you any more and you are ready to architect something truly professional, come see me because we are hiring. One last thing, drop the attitude.

    4. Re:I really don't get the anti-w3schools.com snobs by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      You're not a professional. Actual professionals (>95% of people who say they are, aren't) use the actual specifications from the W3C, WhatWG (yeah, unfortunately), and the Mozilla Developer Network. (Or whoever designed the specific API/language.)

      Yeah, right. Who cares whether it works, so long as it's consistent with the spec?

      I'm not defending w3schools – I also avoid them like the plague. But sites like quirksmode.org which offer browser compatibility tables and documentation of known bugs are invaluable.

  22. like this one by w3fools??? by elloGov · · Score: 2

    www.w3schools.com/js/js_popup.asp. alert() and confirm() dialogs with no explanation that they should generally be avoided. Also no discussion of console.log() for debugging purposes.

    Hmmm, lets see...
    1. Snub w3schools for not diving into advanced topics as to not overwhelm newcomers.
    2. Not acknowledge the cases where alert and confirm dialogs are sufficient solutions.
    3. Criticize w3schools.com for lack of giving explanation while you yourself don't give an explanation.
    4. Advocating the use of console.log while knowing that console object isn't supported by all browsers.

    1. Re:like this one by w3fools??? by ameen.ross · · Score: 2

      1. Snub w3schools for posing as a developer resource while targeting newbies.
      2. Point out that in general the alert and confirm dialogs have better alternatives.
      3. Criticize w3schools.com for lack of giving explanation while pointing at resources that do.
      4. Advocating the use of console.log while knowing that the console object isn't supported by IE, which should be avoided as a debugging tool anyway.

      FTFY

      --
      $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
    2. Re:like this one by w3fools??? by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      FWIW, console.log absolutely is supported by IE9. I don't know what browsers it's not supported by - probably some 5+ year old ones - but the modern IE dev/debug/profiling tools are actually reasonable to work with. They're no Firebug, but they beat the shit that actually ships with Firefox.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    3. Re:like this one by w3fools??? by ameen.ross · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I meant to say lt IE 9
      The major advantage of FF's new built-in dev tools is performance. Because of the existence and prevalence of Firebug, there isn't so much of a need for native dev tools with a good UI. Can't say the same for IE...

      --
      $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
    4. Re:like this one by w3fools??? by ameen.ross · · Score: 1
      --
      $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
    5. Re:like this one by w3fools??? by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm going through the objections and finding most of the complaints are either misleading or finding six ways to interpret something and then deliberately pick the one that's wrong. The "Professional web developers" remark would seem an obvious example.

      Also this, I thought, was laughable:

      An oft-repeated mantra in OSS (and a critique we've already received) is that you shouldn't criticise something unless you're willing to put your money where your mouth is and build something better. It's an admirable ethos, but not really applicable here.

      W3Schools has put a lot of effort into positioning itself at the top of search results and, despite our efforts (such as the PromoteJS initiative), appears to be there to stay. Other, better resources already exist, but none of them are capable of overcoming the inertia that W3Schools has built up over the years.

      Apparently this group strongly lacks "professional web developers" because most have a basic understanding of how to put a well designed, well written, relevent and accurate website close to the top of the search results for a given phrase, in the absense of a competing site that's using black-hat SEO methods. And quite honestly, I see no evidence that there's any black-hattedness when it comes to W3Schools methods. There are no link farms, no link spamming of blogs, etc, that I can find. I'm actually inclined to suggest if these people can't put their "good site" near the top of the search results, then their site probably isn't that good to begin with. There. I said it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  23. Huh? by suso · · Score: 5, Funny

    We have 100 documentation sites on client side web technologies. Hey, let's try to merge them all into one single authoritative site.

    We have 101 documentation sites on client side web technologies.

  24. Logo by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Funny how the logo is more an upside down 'M' than a 'W'.

  25. Retarded, period. by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 1

    Who the hell cares about web standards, seriously? Since the WWW was invented there have been competing browsers and platforms and any decent web developer worth their salt simply accept the fact that they have to do a little more work to support different platforms.

    Not a year goes by without some statement about the need for cross platform standardization of the web, yet for 20 years nothing has changed or achieved that standard.

    But in the meantime these VERY SAME companies are all trying to create walled gardens where the content you buy/download on one device locks you into using that device for the rest of time, or you have to accept the loss of hundreds, maybe even thousands of dollars to change platforms and give it all up just to re-purchase it all again.

    The only reason why these companies give a rat's ass about web standards is because there is absolutely no monetary amount involved in this. These companies are all in a circle jerk to promote "standards: simply because it will not affect their bottom line. There is no monetary gain in producing a proprietary web standard and so all these companies are blowing hard coming off like heroes creating an irrelevant standards platform.

    The web is simply a vehicle to allow these companies to create their walled gardens and I can't believe consumers are willfully accepting a reality where just because they liked the shininess of a particular device a few years ago locks them into a content platform for the rest of time.

    Anyone hailing the efforts of these companies to create a standard web is completely oblivious to common sense and gullible to the highest degree. The web is irrelevant, content is king, and these companies would rather slaughter each other then create a standard content platform.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  26. Webkit is NOT IE6 by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    .. because it is developed by multiple vendors, and combined they represent the majority of web users. Furthermore, most of the standards are also supported by Mozilla and Gecko, and also Opera.

    When all of Apple, Google, Mozilla, and Microsoft agree on a web standard, and the W3C keeps dragging its heels, then they have no one to blame but themselves. Web developers *AND* users demand rapid progress on web standards, the web is not something that can sit in a standards committee for 6 months while people debate what the meaning of "is" is in the specification.