QUOTE (justsomeguy @ Feb 2 2009, 02:37 PM)

...They might be doing a disservice to learners by claiming that their references are complete, when they should probably just explain that they're showing some of the more commonly-used things, and making people aware that they are leaving plenty out.
I totally agree here with
JustSomeGuy. I just joined a couple of months ago, and my experience was very much so similar to what JSG was sayin'. Here I am, needing to know Javascript, and so I come to this site, and BOOM! there's a complete reference for it. Now, as I continued (and still do continue) to learn these different languages and to use them for various, eclectic purposes, I realize how much is missing in these tutorials and references. Now, although W3Schools is my first stop when trying to learn something, most of the time, I end up having to delve for information elsewhere - or in the forums. The reason that W3's claim of completeness irked me is because I, at first, shut out the idea that there might be a method out there that would do what I needed it to do - I shut myself within the confines of W3Schools, assuming that their references were 'complete.' If you know that naive and green coders are going to be coming to this site, why confuse them with such a false statement? However, in the site's defense, any programmer should know that when some site or person claims to be 'complete' on a subject, or make some such similar claim, you should be instantly wary and critical of such a claim.