A year of publishing the MDN Blog

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/blog/mdn-blog-one-year-on/

by ulrischa • 2 years ago

60 18 2 years ago

developer.mozilla.org

walteweiss• 2 years ago

Off topic: am I the only one who sees the page shaking on an iPhone?

leosanchez• 2 years ago

Seeing the same on Android

prmoustache2• 2 years ago

no shaking here on firefox/android.

weikju• 2 years ago

No issues here in Safari on iOS

SignalM• 2 years ago

It's funny Mozilla has a blog that renders about 20px to wide on mobile. The company that makes most of the web standards. Something ironic about that

sphars• 2 years ago

Renders fine on Firefox Android (no horizontal scrolling), but I do see the extra width on Chromium based browsers

archerx• 2 years ago

It doesn’t render at all on my ipad pro with iOS 13.7. Actually it does render and then immediately turns black. People give w3schools a lot of flak but at least it renders and is usable on my ipad unlike the MDN docs. Do we no longer care about backwards compatibility, it seems not and that’s shameful.

biinjo• 2 years ago

Im guessing this has something to do with certain protocols not supported on an (almost) 4 year old browser without any (security) updates.

prmoustache2• 2 years ago

FWIW the mdn blog works just fine without js so maybe try it while disabling javascript.

uallo• 2 years ago

It's funny Mozilla has a blog that renders about 20px to wide on mobile.

This is caused by the string "sha256-tG5mcZUtJsZvyKAxYLVXrmjKBVLd6VpVccqz/r4ypFE=" which does not wrap properly. Using "word-break: break-all;" on the pre element would fix it.

The company that makes most of the web standards.

That is incorrect. Mozilla is only one of the several companies and working groups that may be involved. MDN is documentation, not specification.

StableAlkyne• 2 years ago

That, and this article in all likelihood was written by a single person whose main job isn't writing a blog. It definitely wouldn't have been been written by "the company"

You don't absorb your company's entire knowledge base just by virtue of working there after all

beastman82• 2 years ago

I see an error. "hadc0ffee" is neither hexadecimal nor matches that regex. Am I missing something?

simonkagedal• 2 years ago

I was also wondering what they were trying to say with that.

huffstler• 2 years ago

I believe they're showing an example of where people would use (incorrect) regex patterns to validate. That's the whole thrust of the previous paragraph. `hadc0ffee` is not valid hex, but the function says it is due to, I presume, an incorrect regex pattern. I'm not familiar enough with regex to know why it's wrong though.

Edit: I was curious, so I looked through the linked docs for regex. They have the exact same pattern for checking hex in there as they do in this one. I guess it was just an error after all?

jethkl• 2 years ago

You are missing the joke. The correct line would read:

  isHexadecimal("HADC0FFEE"); // false

graypegg• 2 years ago

so, I thought there was some esoteric weirdness in the spec'd Javascript regex engine that made HADC0FFEE somehow match /^[0-9A-F]+$/i. Then the joke kinda makes sense right? I do need coffee to work with JS most of the time haha

But I do get false, running it in chrome dev tools.

When they're talking about writing documentation for tricky subjects, this misses a bit. I have no clue what the joke is, other than, if you haven't had coffee, you might think this evaluates to true?

bee_rider• 2 years ago

I think that is the jokey, yeah. Also a tiny bit of a pun maybe, it looks sort of like a status test of some sort: did you have coffee?

A year of publishing the MDN Blog

Related Stories