It’s hard to learn about features you’re unfamiliar with on MDN. There are times that I read MDN docs and think “who is this for?” You can read two paragraphs and not even get an idea of what the feature is supposed to do or what problem it solves. If you’re not intimately familiar with the topic you’re not going to get anything out of reading it.

Sometimes it’s better just to read the spec because there’s more background information.

I’m glad that MDN exists, but I also wish it explained topics as well as CSS: The Definitive Guide. I failed to learn CSS the MDN docs for years before reading CSS: The Definitive Guide. I was up to speed in about three months. Everything made perfect sense.

I’d love to get a wiki that has the explanations of CSS: The Definitive Guide, kept up to date with the reference material of MDN.

I’d pay for this.

▲

snorlaxmorlax 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Hi, I'm part of the MDN team. Thank you so much for your feedback, I'll be sure to share this with the team, and we’ll explore how we can build on it further.

Re: “Who is this for?” Most of our reference pages are grounded in real-world browser implementations. Rather than documenting specs in isolation, we focus on features that have been implemented across browsers. We aim to present this information in a clear, neutral way, accessible to developers at any stage of their journey.

That said, we have expanded our efforts to create more learning-focused content, free resources designed to support new developers through a structured curriculum. Additionally, we’ve started publishing more in-depth guides on niche topics on our blog, which complements our core documentation but serves a slightly different purpose from what you mentioned.

▲

bryanrasmussen 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I have in the past, about 4-5 years ago found some aspects of documentation on MDN in the examples that did not work in browsers because not implemented at the time, as well as some lack of clarity in documenting differences between fit-content function and fit-content keyword therefore I raised an issue https://github.com/mdn/sprints/issues and got the documentation amended. However of course that no longer works for the reasons already mentioned, not sure if there is some other place or process whereby you can raise issues and get documentation changed.

on edit: the issue, 5 years ago https://github.com/mdn/sprints/issues/3723

	▲	snorlaxmorlax 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Thanks so much for sharing this — and for taking the time to raise those issues back then! <3 You're absolutely right that the old `mdn/sprints` repo is no longer the active channel for suggesting or discussing content changes. These days, we encourage folks to file issues directly in the mdn/content¹ GitHub repository. That’s where all our documentation now lives, and it’s actively maintained by MDN staff and contributors. If you spot inaccuracies, outdated examples, or unclear distinctions on any page, we now have a way to report straight from the page, you can find this at the bottom of every page → "Report a problem with this content." Please feel free to open an issue² or even suggest edits directly via pull request. We also try to prioritize fixes based on how widely used or confusing a topic might be, so calling attention to edge cases or under-documented differences is genuinely helpful. Let me know if you’d like help filing an issue or want to connect with the folks maintaining a specific area of the docs. We’d love to have you involved again! ¹ https://github.com/mdn/content ² https://github.com/mdn/content/issues/new/choose
	▲	bsmth 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Thanks for sharing. The best place to raise issues now is the content repo: https://github.com/mdn/content