w3fools.com isn't relatively better (compared with web development best practice at it's release, with the web development prevailing wisdom when w3schools.com launched).
There are a litany of errors and mistakes in their own markup, so their quote of "W3Schools should both hold itself to, and be held to, the highest standards." is ironic - w3fools.com don't hold themselves up to these highest standards.
Also ironic is the statement that W3Schools.com don't link to the "specs" (they mean W3C Recommendations, which aren't specifications or specs) - yet looking through that long page there's no obvious link to the very same Recommendations. Surely that's not a difficult or time-consuming thing to do?
Their markup needs a good polish and refactor. It's littered with examples:
* lack of accessibility appreciation,
* non-understanding of descendent selectors in CSS,
* the difference between emphasis and strong,
* ignorance of CSS pseudo selectors,
* lack of properly thought-out heading structure,
* lack of appreciation as to what role="main" means,
* marking up a series of paragraphs as an ordered list,
* hiding asides and further information in HTML comments,
* misunderstanding of what is and isn't UTF-8,
* editorial changes to cited comments not marked up,
* blockquotes lacking proper citation (in either of the two possible semantic approaches),
* code fragments not marked up with code tags,
* use of accesskeys,
* lack of consistency over how an ellipsis is added to a page - they are using 4 different methods in one page,
* using markup for a presentational effect instead of using appropriate logical markup,
* lack of appreciation of "fragment" in document fragment identifiers.
* And 2005 just called, they want their clearfix class back.
As an example of best practice, their one page site falls below an acceptable level.
Their message is useful - as is parts of W3Schools - but they are repeating the same mistake.
Plus the overbearing righteous indignation that comes across in the largely copied and pasted mailing list isn't the right tone or approach. It's quite easy to pick apart nits in a site, it's quite another to demonstrate the ability to correctly explain the better ways of developing.
This is no better than the anti-Internet Explorer rants. A negative slight at things because it's cool.
The best way to usurp w3schools from the top of Google results is to write better content and share your wisdom. That however will involve bringing together a community focused on providing constructive and positively instructional material - that's something I'm unconvinced that the people behind w3fools.com can accomplish. There's already too much negativity and indignation in the site itself for any of it's creators to improve their credibility.
w3fools.com isn't relatively better (compared with web development best practice at it's release, with the web development prevailing wisdom when w3schools.com launched).
There are a litany of errors and mistakes in their own markup, so their quote of "W3Schools should both hold itself to, and be held to, the highest standards." is ironic - w3fools.com don't hold themselves up to these highest standards.
Also ironic is the statement that W3Schools.com don't link to the "specs" (they mean W3C Recommendations, which aren't specifications or specs) - yet looking through that long page there's no obvious link to the very same Recommendations. Surely that's not a difficult or time-consuming thing to do?
Their markup needs a good polish and refactor. It's littered with examples:
* lack of accessibility appreciation,
* non-understanding of descendent selectors in CSS,
* the difference between emphasis and strong,
* ignorance of CSS pseudo selectors,
* lack of properly thought-out heading structure,
* lack of appreciation as to what role="main" means,
* marking up a series of paragraphs as an ordered list,
* hiding asides and further information in HTML comments,
* misunderstanding of what is and isn't UTF-8,
* editorial changes to cited comments not marked up,
* blockquotes lacking proper citation (in either of the two possible semantic approaches),
* code fragments not marked up with code tags,
* use of accesskeys,
* lack of consistency over how an ellipsis is added to a page - they are using 4 different methods in one page,
* using markup for a presentational effect instead of using appropriate logical markup,
* lack of appreciation of "fragment" in document fragment identifiers.
* And 2005 just called, they want their clearfix class back.
As an example of best practice, their one page site falls below an acceptable level.
Their message is useful - as is parts of W3Schools - but they are repeating the same mistake.
Plus the overbearing righteous indignation that comes across in the largely copied and pasted mailing list isn't the right tone or approach. It's quite easy to pick apart nits in a site, it's quite another to demonstrate the ability to correctly explain the better ways of developing.
This is no better than the anti-Internet Explorer rants. A negative slight at things because it's cool.
The best way to usurp w3schools from the top of Google results is to write better content and share your wisdom. That however will involve bringing together a community focused on providing constructive and positively instructional material - that's something I'm unconvinced that the people behind w3fools.com can accomplish. There's already too much negativity and indignation in the site itself for any of it's creators to improve their credibility.