Skip to content

Revisiting consistency in documenting features that were previously experimental #6467

@VoxelMC

Description

@VoxelMC

📚 Subject area/topic

Experimental Features

📋 Page(s) affected (or suggested, for new content)

📋 Description of content that is out-of-date or incorrect

Some features that have previously been added to Astro were first introduced as experimental.
In doing so, the addition of these features was documented as experimental when first introduced.
After the features were moved from experimental to officially supported, the documentation became inconsistent.

In the case of View Transitions, the transition:persist directive is documented to be introduced in astro@2.10.0. However, at this time, this would have been experimental.

  • Should this be documented as astro@3.0.0, which was when the featured moved out of experimental?

In Astro Assets, the <Image /> component doesn't have a "since", while the <Picture /> tag is documented as astro@3.3.0. Moreover, some documented properties of the Image component are flagged as experimental, added in 3.3.0.

  • How should docs handle documenting when something is experimental and when it moves from experimental to official support?

Essentially, the documentation doesn't account for when something was experimental (if applicable). Those using older versions may believe that a feature is available when it was only experimental then.

🖥️ Reproduction in StackBlitz (if reporting incorrect content or code samples)

No response

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    good first issueGood for newcomershelp wantedIssues looking for someone to run with them!improve or update documentationEnhance / update existing documentation (e.g. add example, improve description, update for changes)

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions