-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 480
Remove JavaScript 101 section #117
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
I personally think there's value in keeping it there. Whilst links to external resources are great, internalizing what we consider to be the absolute essentials means we might be able to get more people reading it. It also means we retain cross-referencing capabilities in case a concept in 101 is going to be described in 'jquery' terms later on |
@ajpiano ping :) |
I was with @kevee when he proposed this, and gave a verbal +1. The basic thought is that maintaining our "own" JavaScript 101 is not an insignificant task, and, one could argue, contrary to the mission of the site which is to make sure that there are places that have "the best" information, and can be canonical, instead of fragmented efforts all over the web to explain what an array is (etc.) I don't think we lose cross-referencing abilities if we need to explain something in "jQuery terms," we can still link to (and participate in the content of) MDN. |
This is true. I think in that light it makes sense to can the 101 section. @kevee would you like to make a PR that removes it? If not, one of us can definitely do that soon. |
@ajpiano aside: I was wondering what the current status of this project is given the recent redo of jQuery Fundamentals that was released by Bocoup. Is there still going to be a push to try cleaning up the content in this repo/this project? Should we be trying to pull in the latest there just to ensure we have more cleanups (such as possibly this section/others if they've been improved or removed)?. Cheers! |
I just wanted to chime in here and say that the current jqf content doesn't necessarily fall under the license of the original jqf content -- it was essentially a complete rewrite -- so incorporating it into the learning site should probably be done in consultation with Bocoup. That said, I think there is still great value to seeing the learning site completed, especially if it continues to take the approach of providing bite-sized bits of knowledge rather than the narrative approach that jqf attempts to take. The new version of jqf also eliminated a lot of content that didn't strictly fall under the "fundamentals" heading, and that's exactly the sort of content that I hope the learning site will be able to provide. cc @ajpiano |
just to clarify. whip me with reeds if i'm incorrect here: afaict, the new JQF is not under a permissive license, so its necessary to consult with Bocoup to negotiate how to incorporate the content. |
@paulirish You're correct on both counts: The original jqf material remains licensed by me as cc-by-sa, and licensing of the current jqf content would be up to Bocoup. |
🙆♀️ |
Ok. So we're going to keep the JavaScript 101 section for now. Justification: Many designers and new web developers learn JS via jQuery so we shouldn't expect them to know all the basics. JS isn't changing so this section shouldn't be hard to maintain. 📝 We are going to clean it up a bit and try and inject some jQuery-related knowledge and connections. The result should be "An intro to JavaScript for jQuery users". |
Sgtm On 15 Oct 2012 18:23, "Adam Lehman" notifications@github.com wrote:
|
Looks like the JavaScript 101 has been removed? |
The JavaScript 101 section, while containing useful content, seems to already duplicate resources available elsewhere - like the excellent [Mozilla Developer Network JavaScript Guide(https://developer.mozilla.org/en/JavaScript/Guide), among others.
If we remove it from the learn site, however, then we should probably include a preamble to the site about the assumptions the site makes about the users' experience, something like:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: