You-Dont-Need-JavaScript
You-Dont-Need-JavaScript copied to clipboard
you-dont-need
README.MD missing word "not" in a sentence
Please bear with me. I am new to GitHub and git. In the very first sentence of the first paragraph (just below the page title (You Don't Need JavaScript) we have the sentence (set to bold for easy identification):
Please note these demos should be considered as CSS "Proofs of Concepts". They may have serious issues from accessibility point of view (keyboard navigation, speech synthesis, etc.), or progressive enhancement/degradation/etc.
Perhaps what you meant to say was (word in bold added):
Please note these demos should NOT be considered as CSS "Proofs of Concepts". They may have serious issues from accessibility point of view (keyboard navigation, speech synthesis, etc.), or progressive enhancement/degradation/etc.
But they are proofs of concepts. This repo is not a library for production use, it just shows that JS is unneeded for most of things.
And instead of creating this issue the more clean way is to create a PR. GH built in editor can be used for that.
They are "Proofs of Concepts" and you should think twice before you write something like this in real projects.
and you should think twice before you write something like this in real projects.
Why not? Support for lot of the features used had come into browsers long enough ago, is pretty stable and is used in production.
"Proof of concept" depends on context (or scope if you prefer). The context cautions users about accessibility and performance (progressive degradation/enhancement issues) with respect to browser compatibility I am assuming. If that is the case then the word NOT applies. It would suggest that because these CSS methods may not universally render these methods may not be considered "proof of concepts."
This is a definitional question, in which I fear yours runs afoul of consensus usage. Independent of scope a Proof of Concept is a test, example, or implementation otherwise less featureful than an enterprise grade product, and as such may bear the deficiencies enumerated in the subsequent sentence. Insofar as this repository does not exclude projects on the basis of, e.g., accessibility issues, the blanket caveat that they might be Proofs of Concept is warranted.
If the goal is accessibility and performance across a wide range of devices and clients then this is NOT a
proof of concept.
If the goal is accessibility and performance
They are not the goals of this repo:
They may have serious issues from accessibility point of view (keyboard navigation, speech synthesis, etc.), or progressive enhancement/degradation/etc.
Oh gawd I give up. I was only trying to help. Regardless this is one outstanding series of repos.
