Mozilla and Open Web Docs Working Together on MDN(hacks.mozilla.org)
hacks.mozilla.org
Mozilla and Open Web Docs Working Together on MDN
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2022/03/mozilla-and-open-web-docs-working-together-on-mdn/
102 comments
There isn't even a way to donate. All "mozilla" donations go to the foundation and their social justice causes, not useful things like MSN and Firefox.
That’s kinda the point of TFA. Open Web Docs is funded by donations and works with MDN on the free-forever web focused content. MDN is part of Mozilla and just as lost in the woods as the rest of that organization.
You can donate to Open Web Docs here: https://opencollective.com/open-web-docs
You can donate to Open Web Docs here: https://opencollective.com/open-web-docs
That's because donations will never even remotely cover Mozilla's costs. They get something like $3m in donations. Wikipedia gets something like $120m. Mozilla's costs and Google income are like $400m.
Is a browser so expensive to maintain? $400m/year?
Of course.
Mozilla is competing for the same talent as Google, Microsoft, and Apple. Browsers are the most important software at those companies because most other software runs on them.
The Hacker News community doesn’t seem to appreciate the work Mozilla has done to establish web standards. I’ve experienced what it’s like to be stuck with IE6 and IE11 for a decade, holding back web projects at work. Firefox broke through that inertia and made Google, Amazon, Netflix and other companies possible. Essentially, Firefox made the whole “startup” wave Hacker News rides on possible (though much of that momentum transferred to the App Stores).
Mozilla is competing for the same talent as Google, Microsoft, and Apple. Browsers are the most important software at those companies because most other software runs on them.
The Hacker News community doesn’t seem to appreciate the work Mozilla has done to establish web standards. I’ve experienced what it’s like to be stuck with IE6 and IE11 for a decade, holding back web projects at work. Firefox broke through that inertia and made Google, Amazon, Netflix and other companies possible. Essentially, Firefox made the whole “startup” wave Hacker News rides on possible (though much of that momentum transferred to the App Stores).
Maybe. I'm glad FF exists, am using it all the time on desktop.
But here's another perspective: FF led an audience towards Google's web of shit. It would've been entirely possible for Moz to have said no to the latest fad; then, by the power of having a dominating browser in the field, the web could've been preserved as a medium for relatively simple text-mostly information. I, for one, am interested in individual info and personal sites rather than thousands of nice-looking content farms with tracking.
I'm particularly puzzled by those CSS apologists always painting a naive creationist story about how much we progressed etc etc. Yet, realistically, CSS is so bad, like consider-your-career-choices bad, that I have a hard time accepting this as a result of so much energy of so many intelligent people. CSS will go down as this generation of web "developers" retire, since it's an irrational, overcomplicated piece of shit only understandable in discourse as it has happened. Why did I put "developers" in quotes? Because the web was a vision for easy good-enough self-publishing for layman, not an "industry".
Saying this as someone who's a sucker for design, and sucks at it, too.
But here's another perspective: FF led an audience towards Google's web of shit. It would've been entirely possible for Moz to have said no to the latest fad; then, by the power of having a dominating browser in the field, the web could've been preserved as a medium for relatively simple text-mostly information. I, for one, am interested in individual info and personal sites rather than thousands of nice-looking content farms with tracking.
I'm particularly puzzled by those CSS apologists always painting a naive creationist story about how much we progressed etc etc. Yet, realistically, CSS is so bad, like consider-your-career-choices bad, that I have a hard time accepting this as a result of so much energy of so many intelligent people. CSS will go down as this generation of web "developers" retire, since it's an irrational, overcomplicated piece of shit only understandable in discourse as it has happened. Why did I put "developers" in quotes? Because the web was a vision for easy good-enough self-publishing for layman, not an "industry".
Saying this as someone who's a sucker for design, and sucks at it, too.
If a camel is a horse designed by committee, CSS is the product of 10 generations of camel breeding by different committees, followed by some rounds of competing evil geniuses creating genetically modified variants.
We should also keep in mind that the use cases have completely and wildly changed.
That being said, it does seem like we are overdue for a clean slate.
We should also keep in mind that the use cases have completely and wildly changed.
That being said, it does seem like we are overdue for a clean slate.
"Mozilla is competing for the same talent as Google, Microsoft, and Apple."
Not exactly the same. Many are willing to accept less pay, to work on meaningful open source and not for advertisement.
Not exactly the same. Many are willing to accept less pay, to work on meaningful open source and not for advertisement.
From another point of view, our society has major market inefficiencies around resource allocation that we need to figure out. As a society, we absolutely need a free and open web (modern telecommunications). We also need other things like agriculture, energy, medical tech, sanitation, transportation, and education. Yet we pay people the most to work on ad tech. This is a major, generational problem.
Edit: I think we may be starting to figure this out. Google is slowly starting to charge for more services. Even Facebook is looking to introduce paid products (Quest). People are also learning from Elon Musk how much wealth can be generated by working on major human problems like transport, energy, and space access.
Edit: I think we may be starting to figure this out. Google is slowly starting to charge for more services. Even Facebook is looking to introduce paid products (Quest). People are also learning from Elon Musk how much wealth can be generated by working on major human problems like transport, energy, and space access.
Maybe 10-20% less, but it’s not enough to meaningfully make a difference.
20% less would be already quite meaningful. Add to that volunteers who work completely for free, and this could give an edge and I would argue, that this is mainly what keeps firefox alive. Despite their management increasingly acting like a ordinary company.
"In 2018 she received a total of $2,458,350 in compensation from Mozilla, which represents a 400% payrise since 2008.[14] On the same period, Firefox marketshare was down 85%. When asked about her salary she stated "I learned that my pay was about an 80% discount to market. Meaning that competitive roles elsewhere were paying about 5 times as much. That's too big a discount to ask people and their families to commit to." "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker#Mozilla_Foundat...
"In 2018 she received a total of $2,458,350 in compensation from Mozilla, which represents a 400% payrise since 2008.[14] On the same period, Firefox marketshare was down 85%. When asked about her salary she stated "I learned that my pay was about an 80% discount to market. Meaning that competitive roles elsewhere were paying about 5 times as much. That's too big a discount to ask people and their families to commit to." "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Baker#Mozilla_Foundat...
> That's too big a discount to ask people and their families to commit to.
And she said that while laying off 250 people, imposing a 100% discount on them and their families.
And she said that while laying off 250 people, imposing a 100% discount on them and their families.
To work on an open source browser instead of apps yes, but how many people would take a significant pay cut to work on Firefox instead of Chrome?
A web browser is some of the most complicated software in existence.
Mozilla management is so expensive to maintain.
Mozilla management is probably around 1% of the budget, more if you count middle management but I doubt you're discussing positions like those.
"Mozilla CEO Increased Her Salary From 2.5 Million Dollars to Over 3 Million"
This person alone receives around 1% of the budget.
This person alone receives around 1% of the budget.
When she "increased her salary" she became the CEO seemingly without replacing her old role, becoming the only executive.
It's worse than this. While money does not flow from Mozilla Foundation to Mozilla Corporation, the opposite is not true. A lot of the money that Mozilla Corporation manages to make is not spent on Firefox development, but is instead paid to Mozilla Foundation, ostensibly to license the Mozilla brand. The Foundation is actively holding Firefox back with this organizational scheme.
> For 2019, the Mozilla Foundation received $15,858,258 per a trademark license agreement with Mozilla Corporation, allowing us to reinvest earnings from our products into advocacy and grant making that grow the internet health movement.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2019/
> For 2019, the Mozilla Foundation received $15,858,258 per a trademark license agreement with Mozilla Corporation, allowing us to reinvest earnings from our products into advocacy and grant making that grow the internet health movement.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/annualreport/2019/
TBH they they could do a little more in regards of donating. For eg. I can very easily ask my government to donate 1% of my taxes to Wikimedia foundation, but Mozilla is not registered as such in my country.
I wonder how much of Mozilla budget is actually spent on Firefox.
Wikimedia Foundation had a revenue of $157 million in 2021 and >550 staff and contractors.
Wikimedia Foundation had a revenue of $157 million in 2021 and >550 staff and contractors.
You can contribute directly to Thunderbird, I often wonder if it's poor performance is one of the reasons similar things aren't tried with Firefox.
https://give.thunderbird.net/en-US/
https://give.thunderbird.net/en-US/
Thunderbird is a separate and entirely voluntary project that Mozilla don't manage.
But even apart from Mozilla's lack of involvement, it's also a wildly different - and so incomparable - product (local email in a webmail dominated world, compared to a browser in a browser dominated world).
Thunderbird would absolutely be worse off if they didn't have that (great, well organised) facility.
But even apart from Mozilla's lack of involvement, it's also a wildly different - and so incomparable - product (local email in a webmail dominated world, compared to a browser in a browser dominated world).
Thunderbird would absolutely be worse off if they didn't have that (great, well organised) facility.
Same I contribute too, and seriously wish the same was setup for Firefox.
I suspect the Thunderbird fund is not doing well because people assuming giving to Mozilla funds mainly technical work and most people don't know about Mozilla issues nor about the smaller direct funds like Thunderbird's.
I suspect the Thunderbird fund is not doing well because people assuming giving to Mozilla funds mainly technical work and most people don't know about Mozilla issues nor about the smaller direct funds like Thunderbird's.
[deleted]
> If they just took a fundraising approach like how public radio and Wikipedia do
People notoriously _hate_ both these group's approach to funding.
People notoriously _hate_ both these group's approach to funding.
Also, Wikipedia is able to make so much money from just donations because their target audience is "literally everyone."
MDN has a smaller set of users, and the thing with running websites with user-generated content is that it scales up pretty well. MDN probably only costs about a tenth as much as Wikipedia to run, but has much, must less than a tenth as many users.
MDN has a smaller set of users, and the thing with running websites with user-generated content is that it scales up pretty well. MDN probably only costs about a tenth as much as Wikipedia to run, but has much, must less than a tenth as many users.
Public Radio wouldn't bother me so much if they didn't also constantly run ads.
They have to sometimes because the donations (sadly) aren't always enough
It's more than "sometimes", these days. They've long moved on from a quick "this program made possible by..." to straight up reading ads on air, frequently. Between that and all the time they spend promoting their own programs, plus the pledge drives, I doubt their content/non-content time is any better than most commercial radio. Maybe worse.
The evidence says otherwise: They donate a lot to those organizations and use them heavily.
> If they just took a fundraising approach like how public radio and Wikipedia do, I would gladly contribute a few times per year when a big banner shows up asking for donations
There's nothing stopping you donating to mozilla [0] right now, however I suspect many people here will reply that that's donating to mozilla, and not to FF/MDN/whatever, but that's no different to donating to wikimedia [1] or the linux foundation [2].
[0] https://donate.mozilla.org/en-GB/ [1] https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give [2] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/donate/
There's nothing stopping you donating to mozilla [0] right now, however I suspect many people here will reply that that's donating to mozilla, and not to FF/MDN/whatever, but that's no different to donating to wikimedia [1] or the linux foundation [2].
[0] https://donate.mozilla.org/en-GB/ [1] https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ways_to_Give [2] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/donate/
Death to w3schools! When search engines allowed blacklisting domain, w3schools was my first and only pick. It always seems to show up on top for many web tech questions, but the quality is rubbish.
MDN is a breath of fresh air in this regard. I expect it will knock w3schools of it's search result throne in the coming years. The end of a era of low quality, ad sponsored (4 ads, just counted) web technology reference.
MDN is a breath of fresh air in this regard. I expect it will knock w3schools of it's search result throne in the coming years. The end of a era of low quality, ad sponsored (4 ads, just counted) web technology reference.
Because of this rant I had a look at the company behind w3shools. This is their about page:
https://w3schools.sinsixx.com/about/about_refsnes.asp.htm
If you want to communicate "stuck in the 90s", take this as your example! The photo of the "Web Masters", the favicon, the W3C-badges, the gif-badge webhosting ad, fixed-width, the CMS400 ad, the bordered boxes around everything. I had a blast.
https://w3schools.sinsixx.com/about/about_refsnes.asp.htm
If you want to communicate "stuck in the 90s", take this as your example! The photo of the "Web Masters", the favicon, the W3C-badges, the gif-badge webhosting ad, fixed-width, the CMS400 ad, the bordered boxes around everything. I had a blast.
Personally I found that page and photo to be adorable and it improved my overall impression of w3shools from “an acceptable target of ridicule” to “aww, they’re trying their best even if they’re a bit clueless”.
If HN allowed embedded media, you can bet there would be a headpat animation in this comment.
If HN allowed embedded media, you can bet there would be a headpat animation in this comment.
> improved my overall impression of w3shools from “an acceptable target of ridicule” to “aww, they’re trying their best even if they’re a bit clueless”
Funny how that works, huh? Here's a pertinent rule that some^Wall here may^Wshould have seen before:
> Remember the human
https://www.britannica.com/topic/netiquette
Funny how that works, huh? Here's a pertinent rule that some^Wall here may^Wshould have seen before:
> Remember the human
https://www.britannica.com/topic/netiquette
Facts. This isn’t the first time I learned my hatred was irrational.
[deleted]
To be fair, that seems to be a copy of the page from more than 10 years ago (note the "Copyright 1999-2009" in the footer). The current website still seems to be run by the same company but looks much more modern.
You are probably right. I just Google'd for "Refnes Data" (the name I found on the w3schools page) and this was the first hit.
I checked again but did not find a more modern site anywhere. Did you?
I checked again but did not find a more modern site anywhere. Did you?
That's about w3schools (a product) not the company behind it.
Not to defend w3schools but it seems you linked to some very old version of their site. This is the current About page: https://www.w3schools.com/about/default.asp
"I don't like something so no one should use it!"
What kind of logic is that? I actually prefer going to w3schools because as a quick reference I find what I'm looking for much faster than MDN. It has interactive examples right at the top so you can get a quick idea on what a function does. I am happy that both exist.
Either you are completely out of touch or you're going to need to show some of the "low quality" examples from w3schools.
What kind of logic is that? I actually prefer going to w3schools because as a quick reference I find what I'm looking for much faster than MDN. It has interactive examples right at the top so you can get a quick idea on what a function does. I am happy that both exist.
Either you are completely out of touch or you're going to need to show some of the "low quality" examples from w3schools.
As someone who's done webdev for a living since 1998, I share the OP's distaste for w3schools -- they truly earned their notoriety as a low-quality, spammy, SEO-hacking parasite. It was so bad it inspired a large group of some of the biggest names in the field to push back with a site called "w3fools" that tried to set the record straight and steer the hapless masses away from w3schools. See eg https://web.archive.org/web/20110412103745/http://w3fools.co...
Unfortunately, it seems w3schools has since managed to acquire the w3fools domain, and (facepalm, what the actual f**) have appropriated the original content to make it appear as if those famous anti-w3schools signatories have all changed their minds and now endorse w3schools (!) -- which might actually be libel? and is just another scandalous example of the shadiness at play.
A leopard doesn't change its spots. w3schools sucks. Steer clear!
Unfortunately, it seems w3schools has since managed to acquire the w3fools domain, and (facepalm, what the actual f**) have appropriated the original content to make it appear as if those famous anti-w3schools signatories have all changed their minds and now endorse w3schools (!) -- which might actually be libel? and is just another scandalous example of the shadiness at play.
A leopard doesn't change its spots. w3schools sucks. Steer clear!
Worth pinging a few of the original signatories on Twitter to get their take?
> Unfortunately, it seems w3schools has since managed to acquire the w3fools domain
"Seems"? Do you know that it is true, or are you guessing?
"Seems"? Do you know that it is true, or are you guessing?
Probably guessing. The site is still alive, but has been changed to say that W3Schools has cleanup up their act. https://www.w3fools.com/
[deleted]
You do you. I find MDN so much better that I hope they soon push w3schools off their first-hit-throne.
> Either you are completely out of touch or you're going to need to show some of the "low quality" examples from w3schools.
Do you really need me for that? Here are "div" and "table" on both.
https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_div.asp
https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_table.asp
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/di...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/ta...
To me the difference is enormous (quality of writing, completeness, correct use of words, ads, noise on the page).
But again: see for yourself. Now read back yous comment and see if your "What kind of logic is that?" and "I don't like something so no one should use it!" were reasonable sentences to throw at me.
> Either you are completely out of touch or you're going to need to show some of the "low quality" examples from w3schools.
Do you really need me for that? Here are "div" and "table" on both.
https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_div.asp
https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_table.asp
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/di...
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/ta...
To me the difference is enormous (quality of writing, completeness, correct use of words, ads, noise on the page).
But again: see for yourself. Now read back yous comment and see if your "What kind of logic is that?" and "I don't like something so no one should use it!" were reasonable sentences to throw at me.
I still prefer the w3schools version, I feel like it is better because it is concise and get straight to the point without a ton of blah blah, if I want an encyclopedic type of reference (which is rare) I go to mdn, but most of the times I just need quick reference that gets to the point immediately. Also I forget the internet has ads, don't you have ublock origin installed?
Yes, they were totally reasonable sentences to throw at you because you want something to fail because of your subjective opinion disregarding if anyone else might find that something useful, it seems a bit solipsistic.
I'm not saying mdn should be blocked, I'm saying I'm happy both exists, do you see the difference?
Yes, they were totally reasonable sentences to throw at you because you want something to fail because of your subjective opinion disregarding if anyone else might find that something useful, it seems a bit solipsistic.
I'm not saying mdn should be blocked, I'm saying I'm happy both exists, do you see the difference?
If you don't want an encyclopedic reference, you can read the first section on MDN and move on. It's about as long and to the point as the w3schools article, and has all the rest of the content if you want to dig further.
I don't think it should be blocked, but its content is almost always low quality, so it doesn't deserve the search rating it has. Its prominence is a strong symptom that search engines do not work very well.
I don't think it should be blocked, but its content is almost always low quality, so it doesn't deserve the search rating it has. Its prominence is a strong symptom that search engines do not work very well.
Both seem fairly high quality to me, after reading the comments and viewing the pages from each site in comparison.
I remember using w3schools to learn HTML probably about twenty years ago now, and the content hasn't changed much since then. MDN appears to have gone through two major transitions within the past year.
Whether those qualities are good or bad depend on your perspective; whether one of them ranks above the other in terms of SEO depends on the algorithms used by the search engine in question.
I remember using w3schools to learn HTML probably about twenty years ago now, and the content hasn't changed much since then. MDN appears to have gone through two major transitions within the past year.
Whether those qualities are good or bad depend on your perspective; whether one of them ranks above the other in terms of SEO depends on the algorithms used by the search engine in question.
1. where did you see that logic? I can't see it in the comment
2. w3schools has surface-level tutorials that teach you the most basic use case of each feature. It's decent for teaching, hence the name. MDN on the other hand is a complete reference - it shows every possible way to use a certain feature in a standardised format. Not as beginner-friendly, but it's what professional web developers need. They are very different sites.
2. w3schools has surface-level tutorials that teach you the most basic use case of each feature. It's decent for teaching, hence the name. MDN on the other hand is a complete reference - it shows every possible way to use a certain feature in a standardised format. Not as beginner-friendly, but it's what professional web developers need. They are very different sites.
MDN also has a bunch of tutorials[1], even for for various frameworks.
I think the major difference is that W3Schools neglects to explain important concepts like what semantic html is and just says: "div is a cool box".
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/HTML/Introduc...
I think the major difference is that W3Schools neglects to explain important concepts like what semantic html is and just says: "div is a cool box".
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Learn/HTML/Introduc...
W3Schools' detractors do their credibility no favours with these spurious examples when claiming low quality. Nowhere do they say anything as reductive as "div is a cool box". Here's what they say about divs:
> The <div> tag defines a division or a section in an HTML document.
> The <div> tag is used as a container for HTML elements - which is then styled with CSS or manipulated with JavaScript.
> The <div> tag is easily styled by using the class or id attribute.
That's a succinct, factual description of its definition and basic functions. What's wrong with that?
> The <div> tag defines a division or a section in an HTML document.
> The <div> tag is used as a container for HTML elements - which is then styled with CSS or manipulated with JavaScript.
> The <div> tag is easily styled by using the class or id attribute.
That's a succinct, factual description of its definition and basic functions. What's wrong with that?
When comparing the articles for <div> on MDN and W3Schools they look rather similar. Both show that a div can get styled by using class or id. But MDN is a lot more careful in their wording and gives important context.
W3Schools writes: > The <div> tag defines a division or a section in an HTML document. From a semantic perspective this is not true or it's at least misleading. <div> does not define a section or division, that's what <section> or <article> is for.
The MDN article in contrast calls a div a "generic container" and has a disclaimer that says. > The <div> element should be used only when no other semantic element (such as <article> or <nav>) is appropriate.
And while W3Schools does not say "div is a cool box", they instead write "Any sort of content can be put inside the <div> tag!", which...yeah.
W3Schools writes: > The <div> tag defines a division or a section in an HTML document. From a semantic perspective this is not true or it's at least misleading. <div> does not define a section or division, that's what <section> or <article> is for.
The MDN article in contrast calls a div a "generic container" and has a disclaimer that says. > The <div> element should be used only when no other semantic element (such as <article> or <nav>) is appropriate.
And while W3Schools does not say "div is a cool box", they instead write "Any sort of content can be put inside the <div> tag!", which...yeah.
That final line comes after the aforementioned explanation, not in place of it as OP suggests.
The point, as many others have offered in this thread but those set on hating W3Schools at all costs are determined to ignore, is that they provide a succinct explanation of web technologies for the relative layman. Its existence doesn't detract from MDN or any other resource, meanwhile it provides a demonstrable service. That seems like an odd crime to warrant strawmen attacks.
The point, as many others have offered in this thread but those set on hating W3Schools at all costs are determined to ignore, is that they provide a succinct explanation of web technologies for the relative layman. Its existence doesn't detract from MDN or any other resource, meanwhile it provides a demonstrable service. That seems like an odd crime to warrant strawmen attacks.
I see it as the opposite, if I'm going to learn a new feature, mdn would be the place to go to get a deep dive of what it does but once you understand it, w3schools is the place to go for a quick syntax and argument reference.
I expect it will knock w3schools of it's search result throne in the coming years.
There's no practical incentive for Google to prioritize MDN over w3schools though. Google doesn't seem to rank sites on quality any more. I suspect they rank sites on "ad profitability" instead. Showing users websites that have adverts means users click on more adverts, which Google benefits from (by encouraging that user behavior even if they're not the ad publisher themselves).
w3schools has been online since 1998. MDN has been online since 2005. Why would Google change the search results in the coming years rather than at any time in the previous 17 years if they were aiming for quality?
There's no practical incentive for Google to prioritize MDN over w3schools though. Google doesn't seem to rank sites on quality any more. I suspect they rank sites on "ad profitability" instead. Showing users websites that have adverts means users click on more adverts, which Google benefits from (by encouraging that user behavior even if they're not the ad publisher themselves).
w3schools has been online since 1998. MDN has been online since 2005. Why would Google change the search results in the coming years rather than at any time in the previous 17 years if they were aiming for quality?
You can blacklist w3schools by using ublacklist: https://github.com/iorate/ublacklist
There are also lists for blacklisting github and stackoverflow content clone sites.
There are also lists for blacklisting github and stackoverflow content clone sites.
I always just add mdn to the search criteria if it's a search related to web technologies.
The concern is will MDN still be good in a few years now that Mozilla fired all of the professional technical writers that made MDN good and instead is going for the Wikipedia approach.
I have my doubts the quality will remain
I have my doubts the quality will remain
This article is about how they are not going for the Wikipedia approach. Instead of articles primarily being written by volunteers, they will mostly be written by paid techwriters at Open Web Docs.
People don't read articles silly. They are going to complain that if they could contribute money to this, they would contribute so much extra money, but they can't because Mozilla takes it.
Despite the article literally covering this very issue. Just read the comments here.
And I'm willing to be they find a way to blame Mozilla for that ignorance.
Despite the article literally covering this very issue. Just read the comments here.
And I'm willing to be they find a way to blame Mozilla for that ignorance.
Every page is an .asp file.
I'm often disappointed witu mdn as well. Lots of old examples using dated JavaScript passing on bad practices
I agree. We are always trying to improve this but it's a huge task as MDN is such a big site. If you could please file issues (or PRs :) when you find bad practice examples, it would help.
The new MDN design looks snazzy but no longer works in NetSurf. I would hope a resource like this was highly accessible, even to browsers without CSS3 support (isn't this why we have @supports?). It's also furthering a trope of themes being a binary toggle; there are more options than just white and gray--how about OLED black to conserve the least about of power (looks better on my screens too).
I agree that pages about web development should themselves not depend on CSS3 support at the renderer because it's a huge step forward from CSS2 and the documentation itself is just simple documents rather than complex layouts. This has the air of web designers not having even considered this aspect and just went with modern web standards as usual. So an issue should maybe be raised about this. As I browse the site, it's rather simple, strongly text-centric layouts here that may be assisted by CSS3 at places but I can honestly not see why there should be a desperate need.
The content of MDN is open at https://github.com/mdn/content, currently a mix of HTML and Markdown but getting transitioned to Markdown. So a different effort could perhaps be made here for a "low-tech" (like CSS2 at most and Javascript-free?) static page generation to live in parallell with the modern pages. It's all neatly organized in a hierarchical structure.
The content of MDN is open at https://github.com/mdn/content, currently a mix of HTML and Markdown but getting transitioned to Markdown. So a different effort could perhaps be made here for a "low-tech" (like CSS2 at most and Javascript-free?) static page generation to live in parallell with the modern pages. It's all neatly organized in a hierarchical structure.
Actually one could use the latest on the edge modern web standards for this, but leverage graceful degradation so you still have documents that are both readable and comfortable in a browser supporting less things.
If there is one set of standards that would allow that, it's the Web!
This kind of documents should be perfectly readable in plain HTML without CSS and Javascript;
Maybe MDN itself, directly, could be improved?
If there is one set of standards that would allow that, it's the Web!
This kind of documents should be perfectly readable in plain HTML without CSS and Javascript;
Maybe MDN itself, directly, could be improved?
Instead of creating a new tool to convert MDN's content into HTML, it would probably be easier to modify the official tool, Yari, in order to produce web page with more compatible (and faster) CSS & JS.
https://github.com/mdn/yari
But I don't think it would be useful unless MDN merges in the changes. My daily web browser struggles with the new MDN rendering unless JS is disabled. So I've lost a few features since the "design change", notably I cannot run the examples. Would I use a cloned site that's faster and where CSS&JS are more compatible? I would loose the external search I'm used to (DuckDuckGo !mdn), so using the clone would require a few changes on my side...
But I don't think it would be useful unless MDN merges in the changes. My daily web browser struggles with the new MDN rendering unless JS is disabled. So I've lost a few features since the "design change", notably I cannot run the examples. Would I use a cloned site that's faster and where CSS&JS are more compatible? I would loose the external search I'm used to (DuckDuckGo !mdn), so using the clone would require a few changes on my side...
Maybe you could setup a mdn search keyword in your browser (maybe even !mdn would be possible?) to minimize your habit change?
I find the purple on black to be too low contrast for my eyes and setup.
I think Mozilla's structure of having a for-profit owned by a nonprofit has a lot of potential. The problem is that the products they are trying to make money from are also the primary vehicles for accomplishing their nonprofit mission.
A better example is Newman's Own. Their mission is not to make the world's best tomato sauce. That is just how it makes money.
Mozilla needs to find its tomato sauce. Then Firefox and MDN can become the recipient of funds, not the source.
A better example is Newman's Own. Their mission is not to make the world's best tomato sauce. That is just how it makes money.
Mozilla needs to find its tomato sauce. Then Firefox and MDN can become the recipient of funds, not the source.
I love the sly assertion that Newman's Own Tomato Sauce is the best in the world :)
Now they just need to make Newman O's better. Aside from the mint ones, those are great.
Now they just need to make Newman O's better. Aside from the mint ones, those are great.
Lol. Not intended at all. I just meant that the quality of the product doesn't impact their nonprofit work. It just needs to make a profit.
I like MDN. But Mozilla's staff didn't solve the code sample licensing issue[0] a year after the MDN's transaction to Yari (the new platform).
For now, it is impossible to tell whether a given code snippet is licensed under CC0 or MIT.
Good luck using code from MDN.
[0]: https://github.com/mdn/content/discussions/5901
For now, it is impossible to tell whether a given code snippet is licensed under CC0 or MIT.
Good luck using code from MDN.
[0]: https://github.com/mdn/content/discussions/5901
This “division of labour” is ironic, as Mozilla fired many of its staff including a lot of its MDN staff.
Yeah, I'm kind of wondering if I should read "externalizing costs" between the lines or not.
It's not ironic - gotta make space in the budget for exec salaries by cutting a bunch of low-paid folks. Capitalism at work, baby!
They had two high paid execs and cut that in half before cutting any "low-paid" folks.
After strenuously opposing it for three years, in which Baker alone made something like $5-6m, and only because it had become a talking point in media. They still make a cool half million on average - I understand that's small potatoes in SV, but in the great scheme of things it's still a lot.
Beard stepped down roughly a year before the "Exec salaries ballooned while user rate dropped" Cal Peterson post became a talking point. And in the grand scheme of things, executive salary was never more than a few percent of annual spending.
MDN is the single best resource/reference for web development.
In DDG you can search directly there from your browser search bar by typing “!mdn”.
In DDG you can search directly there from your browser search bar by typing “!mdn”.
I really hope this will work for Mozilla. Supporting all works that make them more and more independent.
[deleted]
If they just took a fundraising approach like how public radio and Wikipedia do, I would gladly contribute a few times per year when a big banner shows up asking for donations. That would be a nice direct value proposition -- "please contribute so we can keep this awesome resource free and high quality"
But paying for customizations? This seems like a distraction for all parties involved. It will take away product resources, it will make their code more complex and harder to work with, and worst of all I don't think anyone will really want it in the first place.
I truly hope I'm wrong, but so far this seems a questionable move.