31–40 of 51 posts
> I originally wrote this guide for my daughter, then 12 years old I like the idea of this as an introduction for a child to web development, but I feel like it ( in isolation ) is wanting. One of the most jarring bits of this page is that there is an almost immediate jump from this page to MDN, which is drastically too much for most 12 year olds. There is a lot of "do this, and then do that" style of instructure, bu…
Keep up the great work with such a guide, maybe you kickstart some careers with it!
Very accessible. I don't need to load tons of third party JS to view this website. It doesn't hold its content hostage. It also makes use of things like the details element, instead of resorting to JS for such things. Basically, this is what one could expect from a website, that teaches HTML. To actually know the stuff it teaches, and apply that. This will also be more responsive than 95% of the websites out there. N…
Except it's really not.
I made this html editor with instant preview and it turned out useful when I show friends how make their very first html page: https://no-gravity.github.io/html_editor/ Originally, I made it for myself. To quickly do HTML/CSS/JS experiments. And I still use it for that use case. Often when I show it to non-developer friends, I can see how they light up to coding for the first time. I think it is because it is so acce…
works in real time it helps the beginning of understanding.
I made this html editor with instant preview and it turned out useful when I show friends how make their very first html page: https://no-gravity.github.io/html_editor/ Originally, I made it for myself. To quickly do HTML/CSS/JS experiments. And I still use it for that use case. Often when I show it to non-developer friends, I can see how they light up to coding for the first time. I think it is because it is so acce…
data:text/html,'+c.value+''+j.value+''">textarea,iframe{width:100%;height:50%}body{margin:0}textarea{width:33.33%;font-size:18}
Very accessible. I don't need to load tons of third party JS to view this website. It doesn't hold its content hostage. It also makes use of things like the details element, instead of resorting to JS for such things. Basically, this is what one could expect from a website, that teaches HTML. To actually know the stuff it teaches, and apply that. This will also be more responsive than 95% of the websites out there. N…
> This will also be more responsive than 95% of the websites out there. Except it's really not.
A few things in it that I would not put into a beginner's (or any) guide: - Semantic tags (header, footer, main, section): machine-readable semantics can be fun to play with if one is so inclined, one can go even for RDFa, but AFAICT they will not do anything visible or useful, especially for a small beginner's website, but they complicate the guide. - CSS: the page itself uses low-contrast pink text on a pink backgr…
> but AFAICT they will not do anything visible or useful They are very useful for people using reader mode. I wouldn't worry about sections, though, they're not really used by many tools, as far as I'm aware. > Viewport meta tag It is not a hack, it is part of the html specification. You don't have to include it, but the browser defaults aren't great, and will not be changed due to backwards compatibility. Please alw…
> It is not a hack, it is part of the html specification. You don't have to include it, but the browser defaults aren't great, and will not be changed due to backwards compatibility. Please always specify this tag, do not rely on browsers to break backwards compatibility because they won't.
It’s not part of the HTML Standard; what little underspecification there is is in the CSS Viewport Module Level 1 draft https://drafts.csswg.org/css-viewport-1/#viewport-meta>. The HTML Standard refers to it once, while essentially talking about something completely different https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#speculat...>. The spec is incomplete and atrocious, and no one seems interested in improving it—it’s sat stagnant for more than a decade. It does things like use strtod to parse numbers, so that in theory (unless there’s some other document I don’t know about that replaces the meaning of “strtod”) an English user will parse initial-scale=1.5 correctly, while French would parse it as 1.0—but I hope no one has actually implemented it that way.
(Why is it part of CSS? Rendering stuff is mostly shifted into CSS’s domain, and also most of the things that started in meta tags arguably because of bad decisions end up being shifted into CSS proper, and that was the idea with @viewport, which was part of CSS Device Adaptation Module Level 1; but since everyone was apparently so supremely bored by the whole thing, they gave up https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4766>. But because it’s rendering, CSSWG is still probably the best place for it.)
—⁂—
Anyway: although it’s underspecified, it is… sufficiently consistent and settled, and absolutely invaluable. Every document being started from scratch, which has any intention of caring about mobile-sized screens at all, should include .