Browser-compat-data: MDN states "Full support" for sub-feature, even if some sub-sub-features are not supported

[caugner]

Example:

Firefox seemingly has Full support for sub-feature background of manifest.json.

But sub-sub-feature persistent of manifest.json/background is not supported by Firefox:

Expectation:

• The compat table should distinguish between full support (i.e. has basic support and support for all – standard-track?! – sub-features) and partial support (e.g. orange background-color for this?).
• Additionally, a thin progress bar could visualize the proportion of supported/not-supported sub-features.
• Also, if different sub-features were added in different versions, the "Full support" cell shouldn't simply show the version_added of the "Basic support", but rather the range of versions or the max of versions.

[ddbeck]

To be honest, I'm not sure this is the right place for this bug report, since it's mostly about how MDN chooses to summarize the data, rather than the data itself.

@wbamberg do you know if there's a better place for this bug (maybe filed against MDN directly)? I wasn't sure and I thought you might know

[caugner]

You're probably right, sorry about that, and I suppose https://github.com/mdn/kumascript is the right place.

Evidence is here: https://github.com/mdn/kumascript/search?q=%22Full+support%22&unscoped_q=%22Full+support%22

[ExE-Boss]

It might be a good idea to also do it for mdn/browser‑compat‑toolkit (see also #2354).

See also https://github.com/mdn/kumascript/pull/559, which may or may not be relevant.

[Elchi3]

In https://github.com/mdn/kumascript/pull/559 we decided against computing partial support, and so far this was the only report requesting it to be re-implemented somehow. I don't think we will do that for now. If this becomes problematic for more things, please do file again.