-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 22.5k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Replace non-existent {{compat}} with standard text #16066
Conversation
Preview URLsFlawsNone! 🎉 External URLsURL:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would be interested to know our policy in cases like this. Is it our policy not to add BCD entries for items that are not supported by any browsers? I'm not sure this is a good idea, since it seems like useful information that an item is not supported anywhere, for BCD consumers as well as d.m.o consumers.
Relatedly, the choices we make here affect the definition of this page structure. This page seems like an uncomplicated "Web API instance property" page. Should we expect that
(1) all pages like this should have BCD (and therefore should not have spec-urls)?
(2) Or that BCD is essentially optional for this page type, so spec-urls is therefore sometimes part of the definition as well.
It seems like (1) is preferable, as it makes the definitions simpler and means we can make stronger guarantees about what they contain.
IMO a BCD page should be added for this case - supported behind a preference is still supported. Not sure about the general case "rules" is this was not supported. But my leaning is not to create exceptions. |
cc/ing @queengooborg who will be able to explain to us the current bcd rules. I would be happy to create a bcd entry for these interfaces (this page was the only one we forgot the message here) if it gets accepted. |
We actually don't have a rule yet about adding unsupported features! We have a PR open to add a guideline about it, but it hasn't really moved much. Even if that guideline does land, however, the guideline is for features that have absolutely no support in a browser, so features behind flags may be added. In fact, I recently merged a pull request that adds compat data for this feature, see mdn/browser-compat-data#10925. We should add the |
Cool! Let's keep this open until the next browser-compat package is released (tomorrow?) and then I will update it (about 15 pages) to use browser-compat-data directly. |
oops — sorry, I pushed the button too soon Do we want to revert this for now? |
I'll just open a new PR with the actual fix. |
Not implemented in any browser -> no bcd entry yet