The compatibility table is very confusing when alternative names exist

[phistuck]

MDN URL

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

What specific section or headline is this issue about?

Browser compatibility table user interface

What information was incorrect, unhelpful, or incomplete?

The information is super confusing. This "Alternate name" bullet sounds to me like it is available as both of "fit-content" as well as "intrinsic", but maybe it is just me

Maybe this is clearer -

• 1 - 47 (released 2008-12-11) as intrinsic
  • Removed in 48 and later

-------- (completely separate, as it was implemented in parallel)

• 22 (Released 2012-09025) as a prefixed version
  • Implemented with the vendor prefix: -webkit-

.. | ..

• 46 (Release 2019-10-13)
  • Full support, unprefixed

It might have been clearer (also not so sure). Right now, it is a confusing mess.

Another way is to create a separate entry for intrinsic and mention next to it that fit-content is the standard name

What did you expect to see?

Clearer information

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

No response

Do you have anything more you want to share?

No response

MDN metadata

Page report details

* Folder: `en-us/web/css/width` * MDN URL: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/width * GitHub URL: https://github.com/mdn/content/blob/main/files/en-us/web/css/width/index.md * Last commit: https://github.com/mdn/content/commit/b82ff59aab7883b7bb2222cf9f9f9b6eed818e08 * Document last modified: 2023-02-21T06:13:19.000Z

[teoli2003]

@schalkneethling Can you move this to Yari? Thank you!

[bsmth]

Moving this over now 👍🏻 (to move labels are very helpful, @Josh-Cena - thank you!)

[Rumyra]

Hi @phistuck - thanks for the suggestion. We're currently doing a bit of research to confirm a decision on how to move forward