You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Talking to the MDN folks, they'd like a brief summary of why a given feature was marked discouraged.
They'd like this so that they can generate, from web-features, deprecation banners that correspond the most common cases on MDN, where there's mostly boilerplate text with a sentence explaining the reason for the deprecation.
This seems in-scope for what we're doing, like descriptions.
I agree we should do this. We've kind of tried to stay away from adding too much information and content to web-features, because things on the web platform move a lot. But the kind of features we're talking about doing this for don't move anymore at all. So it feels pretty good for the project to act as a little summary of whatever is written at according_to, so that consumers can display:
This feature is discouraged: ${feature.discouraged.reason} (<a href="${feature.discouraged.according_to}">learn more</a>)
Talking to the MDN folks, they'd like a brief summary of why a given feature was marked discouraged.
They'd like this so that they can generate, from web-features, deprecation banners that correspond the most common cases on MDN, where there's mostly boilerplate text with a sentence explaining the reason for the deprecation.
This seems in-scope for what we're doing, like descriptions.
For example, for
mutation-events
:Or for
import-assertions
we might have something like:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: