I don't get the goal of the website. It's averted as a specification, but to spec what ?! Everything is sourced to another "source of truth".

fmajid 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's a compilation of best practices, and valuable as a one-stop-shop and checklist.

	▲	nvader 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's debatable. Every best-practice arose to solve a real problem within a context, and is only "best" if that context applies. If you apply best-practices without a regard for that context, you end up with a dull, cargo-culted checklist of must-haves to beat people over the head with, without deriving any true human value. The compiler of this artifact is making a judgement call[0] of what best practices apply somewhat universally (to every "decent website"). I haven't yet been convinced of their standing or judgement to make that decision. [0]: Charitably, I'm assuming they have, rather than, e.g. delegating the judgement to an opaque model's weights.

▲

k1m 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I saw this posted on LinkedIn[1], where the author wrote:

> I got tired of pointing at six different sources to back a single recommendation. WHATWG for HTML. WCAG for accessibility. IETF for headers. schema.org for structured data. MDN, web.dev, Google Search Central for everything else.

> There was no single, opinionated, platform-agnostic spec for "what does a modern website actually need to do?"

> So I wrote one.

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jdevalk_the-website-specifica...