|Author||Refsnes Data||Entered||2004-03-09 07:39:58 by Ryanov|
|Edit||edit data record||Freedom||Copyrighted, doesn't cost money to read, but otherwise not free (disclaimer)|
|Subject||Q.A - Mathematics. Computer science (Computer Science)|
|Take with a pinch of salt|
by Jim Bogtha on 2006-04-04 07:11:43, review #481
better than 80%
While their writing and layout are reasonably good, their content is not. Their material contains numerous factual errors that they seem disinterested in checking for or fixing.
Their choice of name seems intended to confuse people into thinking that they are related to the W3C, which they are not. This is a successful tactic of theirs, as almost every time I see their website mentioned, they are referred to as the W3C. I can't help but find that a little sleazy.
More information can be found on their practices at the following location:
"the site's content itself is highly IE centric (W3 my arse, IE-only apis and samples everywhere)."
"It took me a couple of months of correspondance to get them to make a few simple changes to give their SVG (and any SVG written by their readers) a half chance of working in Moz."
"w3schools is a very lacking site. It's coverage is lacking, and hardly anything but API listings are done. No good explanations and few usefull tutorials."
"They don't even test their simple code samples."
"What good is a school that teaches the wrong content?"
|The contents of this web page, except the parts contributed by members of The Assayer, are copyright (c) 2000 by Benjamin Crowell, and are copyleft licensed under the Open Publication License 1.0, without options A or B.|