Data for text-decoration-thickness is out of date

[jensimmons]

text-decoration-thickness shipped in Firefox 70.

The data (as it displays on Can I Use) says that text-decoration-thickness is only partially supported, with two notes.
https://caniuse.com/#feat=mdn-css_properties_text-decoration-thickness

1 Uses the non-standard name: text-decoration-width
2 Can be enabled by setting layout.css.text-decoration-width.enabled to true

Both of these things are no longer true. The notes should simply be removed. And Firefox should get full-support green boxes, just like Safari has. Firefox 70 shipped with full support for the current spec.

All references to text-decoration-width can simply be removed completely — from here and from MDN Docs. That was an earlier name that was considered as part of the CSSWG process. There are zero implementations that use -width at this point, and no historical reason to keep the info around. It just confuses things.

This technology is not "experimental" either. That flag should be removed from MDN. (Which I attempted to do, but it's still showing up.)

[Elchi3]

Thanks for your report, @jensimmons!

This was updated by @chrisdavidmills end of September for the Firefox 70 release in #4825
The MDN docs actually show it green and shipping in 70 https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/text-decoration-thickness#Browser_compatibility, so I think caniuse hasn't updated yet.

@Fyrd How often do you update caniuse's import of the MDN compat data? Seems like this isn't there yet.

This technology is not "experimental" either. That flag should be removed from MDN. (Which I attempted to do, but it's still showing up.)

I hope to remove the concept of "experimental" altogether, see #1528 (there seems to be consensus about getting rid of it finally).

[Fyrd]

Looks like the data's up to date but the converter's not processing the data correctly. Will work on a fix for this soon!

[Fyrd]

Got a fix in, should appear as expected now.

[Elchi3]

Thanks for the very quick fix @Fyrd! 👍

I'm going to close this, but conversations about "experimental" will continue in #1528.