This model - storing markdown files in a git(hub) repo and editing them on Github is getting more and more popular. It would be great to see Github add a more rich markdown/frontmatter editor to their interface to accomodate this.
MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
41–50 of 202 posts
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#42I am a big fan of jamstack. For a lot of my client's use cases it allows me to save them a lot of money and headaches while delivering a better product, especially with a headless CMS like Netlify CMS
I still don't fully grok the term. Is it a loose/blanket term sorta like 'devops' or is it a more literal prescription of actual requirements and practices?
A big problem is that the "Jamstack" branding and the website make it deliberately unclear that "JAM" is an acronym. I can't even find it expanded on the site. Instead it contains relatively verbose explanations that never become clearer than the actual words they so desperately avoid.
It's Javascript, API, Markup. Put "pre-rendered" before "Markup" and you understand everything.
Maybe they do this because they really want to push the fact that you can serve the J and M from a CDN?
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#43>We are replacing the current MDN Wiki platform with a JAMStack approach, which publishes the content managed in a GitHub repo. So... Ceding control over content to GitHub. Ceding control over uptime to Amazon. (Both done by a company that paints itself as pro-people, pro-privacy, etc.) >You will no longer be able to click Edit on a page, make and save a change, and have it show up nearly immediately on the page. You…
Frankly, vandalizing a page becomes harder.
The job of people who would have to check and approve the PRs becomes harder, too.
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#44I don't know. Moving from a Wiki model to a GitHub PR model actually sounds worse for users. They talk about, "building a relationship with contributors". This could also be called, "building a lot of friction for contributors".
With a Wiki, even non-technical users can contribute, because the editing tools are all built in.
But with the PR model, now contributors need to understand HTML, CSS, Git, and GitHub PRs. I've been on GitHub for something like 10 years and I still have trouble figuring out PR workflows.
Making simple edits like grammar or punctuation fixes become significantly more effort in performing the submission than in performing the edit itself.
Wanting to have control over the submission process to prevent drive-by vandalism is certainly important. But that should be managed with role-based authentication and new users needing to have their edits approved by a moderator or by votes from long-term users in good standing. Once again, this sounds like the same old Mozilla line of "doing the right thing for the current user experience is too hard for our developers, so we're going to move the goalpost instead."
Compared to MSDN, MDN isn't as broad, but goes a lot deeper on topics, and has much better examples. Does Microsoft wring its hands over how much running MSDN costs, to the point of considering giving it up entirely? I don't think they do. I think they know that it's important to keep developers on-platform, in-ecosystem, and they do that by offering a comprehensive learning resource.
MDN is the best online resource for learning about Web technologies. I think a large part of that is because of the relatively low friction to edit. It not making Mozilla any money is completely their own fault. They could have taken that a step further and started offering training services and events. It stretches belief that you could have such a popular resource and can't figure out some sort of monetization strategy related to it. But, I guess, that's another of the same, old Mozilla lines.
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I can see, Mozilla have no reason to be losing money other than their own mismanagement.
This is an article about MDN, not Mozilla. How exactly does MDN bring money? Do you suggest MDN should be a revenue source? Or do you expect Mozilla to maintain the MDN for free eternally just because? This is seriously entitled. Mozilla gave us an amazing resource, entirely for free. This attitude isn't right, it's toxic and harmful. Mozilla is in a spot of difficulty, and instead of taking a resource that is operat…
> Or do you expect Mozilla to maintain the MDN for free eternally just because?
That's what I expect of a non-profit organization dedicated to maintaining one of the last two remaining major browser engines, yes.
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#46I am a big fan of jamstack. For a lot of my client's use cases it allows me to save them a lot of money and headaches while delivering a better product, especially with a headless CMS like Netlify CMS
I still don't fully grok the term. Is it a loose/blanket term sorta like 'devops' or is it a more literal prescription of actual requirements and practices?
I can get that a significant part of it is just "static HTML," what I don't quite get is what makes it different than just static site generation. I guess that would be the "A" part...
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#47So they're hoping that they can replace the people they fired with open source contributors working for free.
So, you want to use it for free, but whoever makes it to be paid by someone else?
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an article about MDN, not Mozilla. How exactly does MDN bring money? Do you suggest MDN should be a revenue source? Or do you expect Mozilla to maintain the MDN for free eternally just because? This is seriously entitled. Mozilla gave us an amazing resource, entirely for free. This attitude isn't right, it's toxic and harmful. Mozilla is in a spot of difficulty, and instead of taking a resource that is operat…
It's stuff like MDN that attracts donations.
Fun fact: I have an open source repo with millions of downloads, tens of thousands of active users, and, for at least a year, a prominently displayed donate button. How much in donations do you think it took in over its lifetime?
Hint: it's less than $200.
Donations don't really work.
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still don't fully grok the term. Is it a loose/blanket term sorta like 'devops' or is it a more literal prescription of actual requirements and practices?
I can get that a significant part of it is just "static HTML," what I don't quite get is what makes it different than just static site generation. I guess that would be the "A" part...
Yea... SPA == same thing imho.
Re: MDN Web Docs evolves: Lowdown on the upcoming new platform
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man these kind of views bother me so much. They’re taking one of the most (if not, most) useful documentation sources for cross platform web development that benefits them very little, and moving it to a system of open contribution so it can live past the company’s financial problems. And this is your first take?
As far as I can see, Mozilla have no reason to be losing money other than their own mismanagement.
What are their revenue streams?
Now that antitrust is happening anyways, Google's main reason for shoveling money at them is going away.