webextensions.manifest.content_scripts - "world" property's missing

[RealAlphabet]

What type of issue is this?

Incorrect support data (example: Chrome says "86" but support was added in "40")

What information was incorrect, unhelpful, or incomplete?

Chrome support a property used to define that a script is executed in the context of the page. https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/scripting/#type-ExecutionWorld

What browsers does this problem apply to, if applicable?

Chromium (Chrome, Edge 79+, Opera, Samsung Internet)

What did you expect to see?

world property in the compatibility table.

Did you test this? If so, how?

N/A.

Can you link to any release notes, bugs, pull requests, or MDN pages related to this?

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json/content_scripts#browser_compatibility

Do you have anything more you want to share?

Nothing.

MDN URL

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/manifest.json/content_scripts

MDN metadata

MDN page report details

• Query: webextensions.manifest.content_scripts
• Report started: 2023-06-03T15:46:33.469Z

[rebloor]

@RealAlphabet [ExecutionWorld](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/scripting/#type-ExecutionWorld) is associated with RegisteredContentScript.world. It does not refer to manifest content.

[RealAlphabet]

@RealAlphabet [ExecutionWorld](https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/reference/scripting/#type-ExecutionWorld) is associated with RegisteredContentScript.world. It does not refer to manifest content.

It does. I simply used the link that points to the ExecutionWorld definition, i.e. the chrome.scripting API page. Here's what you're looking for in relation to the manifest. If you took the trouble to consult the link, the article specifies that the properties are the same as for the declarative version. Namely, the manifest's content_scripts.

https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/mv3/content_scripts/#isolated_world

[rebloor]

@RealAlphabet Thanks you for providing the correct reference link. I have reopened the issue. This is quite a simple BCD change - have you considered having a go at it and submitting a PR?