Fabian Thorns wrote: > We tried to avoid frameworks as much as possible since it is complicated to > pick the "right" framework and frameworks tend to be changing more than the > actual base standards. That's why we tried to focus on core CSS features.
In that case I still think that requiring people to know about media queries, flexboxes, and the details of CSS positioning goes a little beyond “just enough features to implement a simple sample app”. That stuff tends to drive even seasoned web developers to tears, and it's quite a lot of material for a weight-2 objective, especially since in actual practice people are likely to use a CSS framework after all (as this stuff is simply too painful to use from scratch). The same applies to the more obscure CSS selectors. > JavaScript is set as *the* frontend > development language, adding another programming language would certainly > be beyond an Essentials exam. I can sympathise with the “one language” argument, but I'm also pretty sure that if I do write a manual about this, at the top of the Express.js chapter there will be a very visible warning in large friendly letters saying that this has been included in the exam strictly for convenience and does not necessarily represent a good real-world choice. People can make of that what they will. One wonders why it seems like it's always the terrible languages that become popular. (Except for Python, that is.) Anselm -- Anselm Lingnau · [email protected] · https://www.tuxcademy.org Freie Schulungsmaterialien für Linux und Open-Source-Software Free Training Materials for Linux and Open-Source Software _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
