Anytime I land on w3schools, I go back to google and click on the MDN link. This was a learned behavior that I don't even question now.<p>Has w3schools gotten any better over the years? Would anyone consider using this or any package from them?
I think there's a lot of unnecessary aggro in here just for the fact that it's from W3Schools. Yeah, MDN is a better source of record but W3schools often lays things out in a way that's easier for beginners to digest. I started with W3Schools before moving to MDN. It served a purpose.
“No license is necessary.” What does that even mean? Sounds like w3.css is copyrighted with no license granting me the privilege of using it.<p>Edit: Looks like the GitHub repo does have a license and it’s a proper MIT license.<p><a href="https://github.com/JaniRefsnes/w3css" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/JaniRefsnes/w3css</a>
Okay, you have to admit them tagging all the classes with a W3- prefix is kind of funny. Looks like their SEO spam approach leaked out to their framework also.<p>But I agree with most people, this site will never recover from its poor reputation. And that’s also their business model.<p>We can only hope Google will eventually tone down how much their site appears in search queries for topics they provide no in-depth information for.
What the heck IS w3schools? i.e who is behind it, where did it come from, where is it going?<p>It's always there and seemingly always BEEN there, and it always comes up in my search results and indeed I often use it and the info seems pretty good.<p>But apart from that, how can something so well used basically fly under the radar?
Good for minimal stuff that’s fire and forget. Their official GitHub Repo is not in sync with the latest release on their website. CSS classes often contain !important rules which makes it harder to customize. No use of css variables so good luck with darkmode. They don’t make use of flexbox or css grid.
A
Even besides the licensing questions and IE comments, this just.... doesn't look good, I'm sorry.<p>I wouldn't be surprised if there were objectively incorrect design decisions here.<p>The final straw was when I visited the "Cards" component - my God.<p>Comparing this to Bootstrap? It's Bootstrap by a landslide.
I used W3.css some time ago to make a basic website [1] for making it easier to find rules while running a pen and paper role playing game.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.cardflip.asia/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cardflip.asia/</a>
<a href="https://www.w3schools.com/w3css/4/w3.css" rel="nofollow">https://www.w3schools.com/w3css/4/w3.css</a> (evidently from December 2020)<p>I think of w3schools as largely SEO spam, though sometimes I have found useful answers when they come up as the first hit. Is that the general perception?<p>(I should add I don't use css professionally)
From my experience with Bootstrap I can tell you the only thing you really need is the grid part of it and there are so many lightweight "frameworks" that have just that and its only 250 lines of css in the example of simple grid: <a href="https://simplegrid.io/" rel="nofollow">https://simplegrid.io/</a><p>Everything else, buttons, modals, sliders, chords are super simple anyway you can just make them yourself or use a way more featurerich separate slider or modal framework and still be on less junk code than with using bootstrap.<p>tl;dr if you know html and css, you no longer need a css framework for most cases.