Jump to content

shadowayex

Members
  • Posts

    814
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by shadowayex

  1. One thing I noticed is that W3Fools never once said anything about trying to work with W3Schools to fix the problems. Instead, they look like they're taking an approach to destroy W3Schools' credibility and have it replaced.I think it would be worthwhile for them to try to work with W3Schools to correct the information. W3Schools has already corrected quite a bit of stuff; some of the things that W3Fools complains about (and have not done the strike out to) have already been addressed. It seems W3Schools is working fast to correct itself than W3Fools can check it's own information for accuracy. This tells me that if the W3Fools people would just take a route of reforming W3Schools rather than destroying it, it would be a very nice outcome.W3Schools even stats in their About section:

    Help Us Correct Errors and Broken LinksWe are working very hard to make this Web site interesting, useful, and correct. If you find an error or a broken link please tell us about it.Tell us about spelling mistakes and grammatical errors (it is not easy to be a Norwegian in an English-speaking world).To notify us about errors, please send an e-mail to:Mail toNote: Solving individual coding problems is not our priority. We believe that we should use all our time to write better tutorials for our readers.
    W3Fools is right in that there are issues with the information on W3Schools, but I believe that W3Fools is wrong in their approach. It would be way more effective and beneficial to work to correct W3Schools, given the vasts amount of traffic it receives with novices and even some seasoned users looking for a quick reference.I wanted to address this with the writers of W3Fools, but I do not have Twitter, and I do not plan on making one just for this. It'd be helpful for them to provide a way to contact them without forcing the users to use a social network that they may not be a part of.
  2. Oh, I thought they were talking about Charles Cabbage and his famous son, Brussel, called Sprout. His cousin on his wife's side was Cole Slaw. Cole married an Irish lass and had a son George Bernard Slaw.
    That has NOTHING to do with the original topic O_o. Not to mention it's not the most intelligent thing I've ever read.
  3. You know, I'm taking the higher level science classes at my school and still never understood what they were talking about when they said "scientific method," but now I do :). I wish someone would've explained it like that a few years ago when I started high school.

  4. I realize this may be pushing the time limit in which I have to reply in this forum, but I feel my curiosity has gotten the better of me.Anything wrong with my signature?

  5. I hardly see moderator actions themselves, aside from a couple edits removing links and whatnot. Other than that, I don't see anything. That could quite possibly be because most of what moderators do is delete spam and move posts. I've had a post moved before, and it was no inconvenience to me at all. I was informed of it kindly and was given an explanation why. I think the moderators do their job well. I have yet to see any explicit or offensive posts. The moderators must get there before I do, Then again, that could partly be the help of good posters reporting bad posts as well. Hmmm.... oh well. Overall, the mods rock, the good hearted posters rock, and these forums rock!

  6. After reading this topic for the last hour, I've seen many, many different arguments, so i would like to put in my input. But firstly, I would like to say this: regardless of what's "best" according to standards, web developers are challenged to do what's "best" for users. I saw this very point made several times. The W3C has made great advancements to what CSS can do. I don't think the problem of support lies with them as much as it lies with browsers. In the end, browsers call the shots, which sparked this whole controversy in the first place. So, I'll begin with that topic.IE6 is old. It's not Microsoft's fault is doesn't support CSS2. It was great back in it's day. However, Microsoft did make the mistake of waiting too long, and IE7 is the result. I'm not a fan of IE7 anymore. It used to be my favorite browser before I started developing, but now I see the benefits of Firefox, more support. In fact, I heard there's a CSS property for rounded corners that is supported by Firefox. Everyone loves rounded edges, but no one loves the work put into making them cross browser. It's known fact that tables work better cross browser that pure CSS layouts, but you also lose a little bit that each browser can deliver. If every browser used the same standard, the standards of the W3C, I can guarantee table layouts would dwindle and die, as pure CSS layouts offer cleaner XHTML. But of course, the W3C and browser vendors won't work together like that. It'd make too much sense.It is true tables aren't meant for layouts. Everyone understands this. But why do developers need to spend hours hacking and hacking to make a layout that works with the old browsers? Even some current browsers don't support everything the W3C suggests to use. As I said before, as developers, we are challenged to what's "best" for the users, and that means giving a layout all users can enjoy. Face it, table layouts are less of a hassle to do this with.I'm not saying table layouts are the greatest thing ever. In fact, I stopped using them two years ago. Instead I've written pure CSS layouts for the websites I've developed lately and everything looks fine in IE7 and Firefox 2 & 3. I'm pretty sure they look fine in Opera as well, although I haven't tried. Truth be told, I didn't even pour that much time into getting it to look fine cross browser. Everything ended up looking fine from the beginning. So table layouts aren't required for consistent cross browser layouts. But on the other hand, my layouts are simple. I don't spend a lot of time saying "this element MUST be RIGHT here on the screen NO MATTER WHAT". I honestly don't care that much. I make it look organized, then pour my hours into PHP programming. I mean, people come for the content, not the little box that stays 10 px from the left all the time. Make the content readable, give the site a little color, and users tend to be happy with that.Now for the developers that do care about every little placement, table layouts are close to the only cross browser solution. Of course you could use CSS, but honestly, is written different CSS for different browsers any better than tables? In my eyes, no.Overall, I stray from tables because that is not there intended purpose. But I also stray from layouts that need CSS hacks to make things look good no matter what as well. In the end, I think developers spend too much time making the placement perfect, when the only people who appreciate those hours ARE developers. Most users just want to read and use the site easily, which can be obtained without over complex layouts, as my projects have proven.And to the original poster: I think you started a "religious" war.

  7. Hello, I joined a few days ago, not realizing there's a Welcome Forum lol. I've been looking as w3schools for a while now. I asked a few questions in the SQL forum that no one has replied to :) but I hope someone replies soon. If you have any questions about HTML or CSS I can help, i'm not very good at much else. But my HTML and CSS skills are very good.

×
×
  • Create New...