What does HackerNews think of content?

I do found more minor errors in MDN compared to other official documentation (like Python), but it's kinda understandable.

And it sometimes takes months to get things fixed (after reporting or providing PR at https://github.com/mdn/content).

I've learned to always test myself when it comes to pesky/obscure behavior(s) of JS.

FWIW, OWD writes open source technical content and is not responsible for the design of MDN nor the blog, ads, or login and membership features of the site. That is done by Mozilla.

The OWD team writes technical documentation on APIs, HTML, and JS. OWD also works on information architecture and browser compatibility data. They contribute mainly to https://github.com/mdn/content/ and https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data/.

Mozilla, not OWD, is responsible for Yari, the platform behind MDN Web Docs (https://github.com/mdn/yari). The MDN blog, ads, AI and design, the MDN infrastructure, are fully owned and controlled by Mozilla.

I know some folks who work on this content and TBH it’s the folks we’d want working on this content.

It is already there.

https://github.com/mdn/content

You can grab the full repo with the content here: https://github.com/mdn/content

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 web needs another platform for this, Mozilla can't be trusted.

You don't have to trust Mozilla. All written MDN content is licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.5, and all code snippets are either CC0 or, for snippets over a decade old, MIT.

And it's all in Git: https://github.com/mdn/content

So if the Web as a whole ever completely loses faith in Mozilla's ability to sustain the MDN platform, all of the content is licensed in such a way as to make it trivial to fork.

There was even an attempt at spinning out the docs ~8 years ago (https://webplatform.org/), which ultimately collapsed back into MDN.