Do not underestimate W3C specs
However, not so with the w3c specs. If you have a problem in html, xml, xslt, xpath, etc., the relevant w3c spec is really the first place you should look. They are very readable, littered with examples and have two other major advantages above, for instance, w3schools.com:
- They are always complete
- They are always correct
* Confusion pleads guilty of the last
Maar je hebt zeker gelijk, de spec is zeer leesbaar.
Dat snap ik toch maar even niet, of wil je zo'n groot mogelijk publiek?
Specifications are always contemporary, not things set in stone for now and ever. They are often incomplete or at least non-exhaustive, do contain errors or don't match the current state of implementations and sometimes even conflict with each other.• They are always complete
• They are always correct
Specifications are living and breathing things that always are in need of updating or overhaul.
Prime example is the HTML4.01 specification that is actually enormously outdated; it still mentions HTML as being an SGML implementation wereas there is no consumer-browser that has ever implemented it that way.
However I do agree that the W3 specifications for the technologies you mention are the best references available as other references often don't get it 100% right.
Comments are closed