[CSS] Unclear that the new src(…) function has (very) limited availability

[ExE-Boss]

MDN URL

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/url_value

What specific section or headline is this issue about?

No response

What information was incorrect, unhelpful, or incomplete?

It is unclear that the new src(…) function is still unsupported in any major browser, and mdn/browser-compat-data#25081 was closed.

What did you expect to see?

That the new src(…) function is marked as having limited to no availability.

Do you have any supporting links, references, or citations?

• Spec URL: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values/#urls
• Firefox bug: Bug 1707923 - [css‑values] Support the src() function in the CSS <url> type
• @mdn/browser‑compat‑data PR: [css.types.url] Add src() function browser-compat-data#25081

Do you have anything more you want to share?

No response

MDN metadata

Page report details

• Folder: en-us/web/css/url_value
• MDN URL: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/url_value
• GitHub URL: https://github.com/mdn/content/blob/main/files/en-us/web/css/url_value/index.md
• Last commit: 5178e1e
• Document last modified: 2024-09-04T23:29:15.000Z

[Josh-Cena]

We should remove mentions of this function on this page, with a separate note that says "there's a url() alternative called src() that has the exact same functionality but slightly different syntax, but it's not implemented anywhere".

[wbamberg]

with a separate note that says "there's a url() alternative called src() that has the exact same functionality but slightly different syntax, but it's not implemented anywhere".

I'm not sure we should even do this, since that isn't actionable information.

[Josh-Cena]

Yes but:

1. That's the reason why we have <url> and url() as separate entities so it gives context and rationale
2. At some point people would definitely say "you are missing something from the spec" so we should preempt that question

[OnkarRuikar]

If no browser has implemented it, then, as per our policy, shouldn't we just remove it from the content?
It is mentioned only on two pages, 4 times in total. The syntax section is also manually crafted.

[wbamberg]

At some point people would definitely say "you are missing something from the spec" so we should preempt that question

People say this about other things that aren't implemented, and our answer is always the same: we don't document things that aren't implemented. Why is this different?

[wbamberg]

That's the reason why we have and url() as separate entities so it gives context and rationale

Maybe this is enough of a reason. IDK. I don't think omitting src() is too bad for this, but I suppose that's a matter of opinion.

[Josh-Cena]

Well we do write "it's mentioned in spec but not implemented" elsewhere, just so people instantly know it's not an oversight without sending an issue and waiting for a response. I also don't have very strong opinions but as a curious reader I would want to understand why it is its own type.