content fix(docs): add a page describing everything about feature statuses

trafficstars

addresses https://github.com/mdn/community-meetings/blob/main/24-01-22/minutes.md#update-from-onkar-onkarruikar

We've been using a bot to update statuses (experimental, deprecated, and non-standard) stored in BCD repo. Since the bot automatically does the update it is no longer required to manually provide status information in the content repo.
If the information is provided manually then it may cause conflict with the bot.

The PR:

adds a new page which explains
- the statuses
- update procedure in BCD
- a warning about updating them manually
- mechanisms used to render the statuses in sidebars, header banners, and inline badges
updates rest of the pages under /files/mdn
- removes manual update instructions
- adds links to the new page
- adds missing information
fixes typos

Start the review with the new page: https://pr31941.content.dev.mdn.mozit.cloud/en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Technology_status

/cc @Rumyra @teoli2003 @dipikabh

Jan 26 '24 14:01 OnkarRuikar

Preview URLs (22 pages)

External URLs (2)

URL: /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Macros Title: Using macros

https://nodejs.org/en/ (1 time) (Note! This may be a new URL 👀)

URL: /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Feature_status Title: Feature status

https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Amdn%2Fcontent+Synchronize+with+BCD&type=pullrequests (1 time) (Note! This may be a new URL 👀)

(comment last updated: 2024-02-21 13:49:23)

Jan 26 '24 14:01 github-actions[bot]

I'm assigning this to @bsmth and @chrisdavidmills - this all looks good @OnkarRuikar but I'd like a discussion about the naming of the new area (not 100% on 'standardization') - we also have a bit of work around a new notification for one of the apis and I don't want this to directly conflict with that, so putting Brian & Chris' eyes on it directly shoudl help 👍

Jan 26 '24 14:01 Rumyra

I'd like a discussion about the naming of the new area (not 100% on 'standardization')

Simply calling it status (as we've been doing in code) is not sufficient. How about:

feature status
technology status
item status

Jan 26 '24 15:01 OnkarRuikar

feature status

technology status

I like both of these and they're congruent with https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Experimental_deprecated_obsolete

Jan 26 '24 15:01 bsmth

Thanks, @OnkarRuikar I am done with that review round. Feel free to ignore/resolve the style comments, mostly some suggestions on technology_status/index.md for you to consider.

Jan 26 '24 16:01 bsmth

Thanks for these updates @OnkarRuikar. Leaving a drive-by comment: also consider adding an entry for the new page on the Page structures landing page.

Jan 29 '24 19:01 dipikabh

Thanks for these updates @OnkarRuikar. Leaving a drive-by comment: also consider adding an entry for the new page on the Page structures landing page.

We don't have to the list is generated automatically. That reminded me to add the new page to the MDNSidebar: https://github.com/mdn/yari/pull/10409

Jan 30 '24 04:01 OnkarRuikar

How about:

* feature status

* technology status

* item status

I would opt for "feature status" to be consistent with browser-compat-data, which documents the feature support status. In this regard, experimental/non-standard/experimental could be considered the "feature standardization status".

Jan 30 '24 09:01 caugner

This pull request has merge conflicts that must be resolved before it can be merged.

Jan 30 '24 10:01 github-actions[bot]

Class: I would opt for "feature status" to be consistent with browser-compat-data, which documents the feature support status. In this regard, experimental/non-standard/experimental could be considered the "feature standardization status".

We still need to decide what do we call this status thingy: a) technology status :tada: b) feature status :eyes: c) feature standardization status :rocket:

Vote using the emojis. If you think of other name then mention in a comment.

Jan 31 '24 05:01 OnkarRuikar

@dipikabh, @hamishwillee , @wbamberg could you give it a final look and merge?

Feb 06 '24 17:02 OnkarRuikar

Don't block on my review. However I will give it a look on Friday if it hasn't merged. Thanks @OnkarRuikar for all your work on this one.

Feb 06 '24 21:02 hamishwillee

@OnkarRuikar thank you for the ping. I will take a look tomorrow.

Feb 06 '24 21:02 wbamberg

Minimally we should document this here, even just like "If a page includes more than one BCD entry in the browser-compat key, then only the first entry is used to provide feature status values".

Done in above commit.

Feb 21 '24 13:02 OnkarRuikar

The most active reviewers have now approved. Any reason not to merge?

I was waiting for you! :)

Feb 23 '24 00:02 wbamberg

Thank you all for the valuable inputs!

Feb 23 '24 04:02 OnkarRuikar

Thanks @OnkarRuikar - you've made things better, as always.

Feb 23 '24 06:02 hamishwillee

content content copied to clipboard

fix(docs): add a page describing everything about feature statuses

content
content copied to clipboard