Add compatibility info for extensionTypes.CSSOrigin

[snoack]

tabs.insertCSS() got support for the cssOrigin option In Firefox 53. (Bug 1310026). Since then there is also extensionTypes.CSSOrigin.

[wbamberg]

Do you think it's helpful to have a separate page for the CCSOrigin type, rather than just documenting it in the insertCSS() page?

I tend to think we overengineer the "Types" docs, and especially for types that are only used in one API, it would be better to document them inline rather than in separate pages. But I'd be interested to know what you think.

[wbamberg]

false not "false"

[snoack]

Fixed. Sorry, it seems the validation didn't care. :/

[wbamberg]

Yes, we don't validate version numbers yet, it gets a bit complicated.

[wbamberg]

false not "false"

[snoack]

Fixed.

[snoack]

I don't think that we need a separate page for CSSOrigin. However, we should document that it is part of the extensionTypes object. I did that, and this PR is adding the compatibility information there.

[wbamberg]

r+

[wbamberg]

Thanks @snoack !

[snoack]

Any idea why the compatibility data for CSSOrigin still don't show up on the article? I force reloaded the page while being logged in, a couple times, meanwhile.

[wbamberg]

Because we don't pull the data direct from GitHub any more: it now gets published as an npm package, and then there needs to be a deployment of the MDN site itself. It'll probably be updated on Monday.

I think we'll streamline this process eventually.

[snoack]

Thanks for explaining.

BTW, I just figured out that the extensionTypes object only exists on Firefox. So the compatibility data (not for CSSOrigin but for the other types) seem misleading, indicating whether the respective feature is supported, unrelated of the presence in the extensionTypesobject. What do you think?

[wbamberg]

Yes, you're probably right.
(this also suggest that using extensionTypes.foo to check whether a particular API is supported is likely to be unreliable).

[snoack]

In order to detect support for cssOrigin it is good enough, as it is a Firefox-only feature anyway. So you can just check whether extensionTyptes exists first, that is what we are doing.

But I guess we should update the compatibility info, for every browser but Firefox, for everything in extensionTypes, either setting version_added to false or using partial_implementation and adding a note that while the feature is supported, extensionTypes is not exposed on that browser.

What do you think?