Drop BCD table from @scroll-timeline article

[sideshowbarker]

trafficstars

This is a follow-up to https://github.com/mdn/content/pull/19056

https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/fc6766d dropped the scroll-timeline at-rule from the “Scroll-linked Animations” spec

The feature was only ever implemented in Firefox, and only behind a flag, and given that it’s been dropped from the spec, it seems very unlikely to ever be shipped (un-flagged) in Firefox (or in any other browser).

[github-actions[bot]]

Preview URLs

• /en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@scroll-timeline

(this comment was updated 2022-09-12 11:26:34.431775)

[queengooborg]

If no browser ever implemented this and the specification was dropped, why don't we drop this page entirely?

[teoli2003]

If no browser ever implemented this and the specification was dropped, why don't we drop this page entirely?

I'm unsure: on one side, yes; on the other, this is still an experimental feature on Firefox…

I wish we could keep it and "hide" it in case it comes back in the future.

[queengooborg]

this is still an experimental feature on Firefox

Ah, sorry, I glanced over that in the compat data (I misread a comment on the related BCD PR as "this is yet to be implemented in Firefox"). Since Firefox does support the feature behind a flag, then I think that retaining the BCD data/tables would be better to show there is a browser with experimental, flagged implementation. I think we're more likely to catch the removal from the BCD side.

[sideshowbarker]

If no browser ever implemented this and the specification was dropped, why don't we drop this page entirely?

In general I wish we would do that in all cases like this one — and have tried to in other cases in the past; but whenever I’ve tried, it seems like the decision we’ve ended up (re)reaching is that we seem to have a de facto practice of keeping things like this around, once they are in.

So IMHO part of the lesson on features like this one is that we really would be better off not creating content for them to begin with — because the cost in time of removing them once they are created seems to be greater than the cost of creating them.

I wish we could keep it and "hide" it in case it comes back in the future.

Since the source is under version control, git rm’ing it pretty much exactly has the effect of hiding it such as way that we can retrieve/restore it back from version control whenever we want.

[teoli2003]

@Rumyra: is there any plan to launch this in Firefox or is it just sitting as "experimental" but with no goal of shipping it anymore?

[Rumyra]

is there any plan to launch this in Firefox or is it just sitting as "experimental" but with no goal of shipping it anymore?

Let me follow up but I assume as the spec has changed, so will the implementation and thus this will be removed...

This works in Chrome for me, although I do have flags turned on. Can @jpmedley confirm whether this was implemented in Chrome?

[teoli2003]

Friendly ping @Rumyra and @jpmedley here.

[Rumyra]

Thanks @teoli2003 - I've been going back and forth on this one :)

Let's not block this pr - the changes @sideshowbarker have made are good. From small tests it seems it was in Chrome behind a flag as well.

I'd also be happy to remove this page (as the feature wasn't around very long before changing) - but it'd be nice to have a good redirect for it, so maybe something for when the new proposed way of scroll animations comes into browsers.