Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

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.




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.


The hipster comment was related to the fact that the article is complaining about ASP, "tight layout" and "icky". I don't use ASP myself, but it really doesn't have any bearing on the content. I don't mind the ads myself (they're fairly unobtrusive), and the layout is acceptable.

I like nice designs myself (I'm currently building a new site and I'm getting inspiration from roon.io and other beautifully designed sites), but I'm also quite content using sites that have less-than-ideal designs if they do the job that I'm looking for.


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.


What do you use then as "official" reference for Javascript?


You never used MDN? How long are you developing web sites?


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.


"I think MDN has an advantage in that they've only really been around since HTML5 has become standardized" => HTML5 is not a standard. Nowhere near so. Whatever you mean by that, MDN is as old as Firefox anyway.

"...whereas w3schools has had to deal with the changing standards of html4/xhtml/html5." => These differences are 99.99% additions, so don't impact documentation that much. In any case, documentations is more relevant is it documents implementations, not standards (which come after implementation most of the time, not the other way around until recently)


That's just not really needed, it's so elitist.


Since 2001.

Stackoverflow seems to be the place where my JS searches lead me.


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!


Please give some examples of the "awful" or "wrong" parts.


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...


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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: