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

[OnkarRuikar]

• 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

[github-actions]

Preview URLs (22 pages)

• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Experimental_deprecated_obsolete
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Howto/Write_an_api_reference
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Banners_and_notices
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Compatibility_tables
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Feature_status
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Links
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Macros/Commonly_used_macros
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Macros
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Page_types/API_constructor_subpage_template
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Page_types/API_event_subpage_template
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Page_types/API_landing_page_template
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Page_types/API_method_subpage_template
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Page_types/API_property_subpage_template
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Page_types/API_reference_page_template
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Page_types/ARIA_Page_Template
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Page_types/CSS_function_page_template
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Page_types/CSS_property_page_template
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Page_types/CSS_selector_page_template
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Page_types/HTML_element_page_template
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Page_types/HTTP_header_page_template
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Page_types/SVG_element_page_template
• /en-US/docs/MDN/Writing_guidelines/Page_structures/Specification_tables

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)

[Rumyra]

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 👍

[OnkarRuikar]

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

[bsmth]

• 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

[bsmth]

Could we change:

Standardization -> Technology

[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.

[OnkarRuikar]

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.

[wbamberg]

👍 thank you Onkar!

[hamishwillee]

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

[wbamberg]

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

I was waiting for you! :)

[OnkarRuikar]

Thank you all for the valuable inputs!

[hamishwillee]

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