Skip to content

Conversation

@tropicadri
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the feature definition Creating or defining new features or groups of features. label Jul 11, 2024
Comment on lines +7 to +8
safari: "17"
safari_ios: "16.4"
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is unfortunate and due to the fact that BCD shows Chromium as partially implemented only.
Badging does work on Chrome and Edge, for installed apps on Windows and macOS, and is documented in multiple places. So, having web-features saying otherwise is a bit of a shame.

@foolip do you have any suggestions? How have we delt with this in the past? Should we allow some wiggle room for editorial overrides for this type of things where, yes, it's not all green, but making it red gives the wrong idea.

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So the problem is here in BCD:

https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data/blob/3b8d8ea67b2a4bd03e8b1aaac80cb54475e221e8/api/Navigator.json#L4229-L4233

And using partial_implementation there is in line with BCD guidelines:
https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data/blob/main/docs/data-guidelines/index.md#operating-system-limitations-imply-partial_implementation

This is very similar to Web Bluetooth, which is also not supported on Linux. I used a status override for that in web-features:

chrome: "70" # macOS and Windows, not Linux
chrome_android: "56"
edge: "79" # macOS and Windows, not Linux

I think we can do that here too.

Unfortunately, the dist files still have the data derived from BCD, blessed as correct:

# baseline: false
# support:
# chrome_android: "56"

@ddbeck any ideas for how we can solve this last problem?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK, so there's some distinctions to make here:

  • The comments don't follow the override. Would it be helpful if they did? Or at least made it clear that the overall status wasn't derived from what's shown in the comments?

  • Do we want to override the per-key statuses, to the value of the parent feature override? Or do we want to override the BCD key statuses, then use that to calculate the full feature status?

  • If we do want to be able to override per-key statuses, do want want that to happen on a per-feature basis (e.g., it's part of the feature authoring and the scope is limited to that feature)? Or on a per-key basis (e.g., we override BCD once and for all, even once we solve the keys in multiple features problem)?

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I filed #1690.

@Elchi3
Copy link
Collaborator

Elchi3 commented Dec 11, 2024

This PR is superseded by #2360 with a BCD update in mdn/browser-compat-data#25375

@Elchi3 Elchi3 closed this Dec 11, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

feature definition Creating or defining new features or groups of features.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants