Re: [csswg-drafts] Let’s Define CSS 4 (#4770)

> But people could translate it to "HTML and CSS from the 00's", so we don't.

Where's this coming from? 


I don't see any of these books mentioning the specific version of Git, and I never saw anyone complaining why the version number isn't specified in the title. These kinds of books, if successful, eventually get a new edition, where they explain that "it's been revised for Git version 2". Even the most clickbait (readbait? buybait?) titles like ["Teach Yourself C++ in 21 Days"]( don't have a version number in the title.

Somebody who has literally no idea about web design won't really know the difference between "CSS", "CSS3" or "CSS4". The numbers can only cause confusion at the entry level, where it literally doesn't matter which "version" you're learning. The reason why CSS Modules work as separate specs is that you can learn about CSS itself and then ignore certain features that you don't care about at the moment. Then, you can learn about them too. "CSS4" doesn't show that the book is up to date -- it uses a cheap ploy to trick people into the usual "bigger numbers means better and newer".

This is an evergreen technology. No book is up-to-date even a few months after publishing. A book about development should teach people how to use the documentation and how to be up to date with such technologies. Furthermore, having numbers in the title locks you down. "Learn ECMAScript2019" would already feel outdated to someone who doesn't understand that ECMAScript2020 isn't anything much different. Teach people what the version numbers are for, teach them how to remain up-to-date, show them how they can follow the progress of the technology. Stop praying on a layman's (mis)understanding by splashing a number to the title.

GitHub Notification of comment by lazarljubenovic
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Received on Monday, 9 March 2020 14:22:31 UTC