sync_event is experimental like SyncEvent and SyncManager

[sidewayss]

The docs say the ServiceWorkerGlobalScope "sync" event is type SyncEvent and depends on SyncManager, and both of those are experimental technology, so the "sync" event must be experimental too.

NOTE: the script has been flipped and now SyncEvent and SyncManager are not experimental. This PR reflects that change.

[skyclouds2001]

per https://github.com/mdn/browser-compat-data/blob/main/docs/data-guidelines/index.md#setting-experimental, the Background Sync API could be mark as non-experiment, as they are supported by at least one platform and for more then two years (in fact it is eight years).

[sidewayss]

By that logic SyncEvent and SyncManager should not be labeled experimental. I'm fine with that, so long as these 3 items are in sync, so to speak.

[skyclouds2001]

Yes, you can change this PR to label both SyncEvent and SyncManager (and ServiceWorkerRegistration.sync) are not experimental

[queengooborg]

Yes, per the BCD guidelines, these features should be marked as non-experimental. @sidewayss, would you be down to change this PR (or create a new one) to mark SyncEvent and SyncManager as non-experimental instead?

[sidewayss]

@sidewayss, would you be down to change this PR (or create a new one) to mark SyncEvent and SyncManager as non-experimental instead?

Sure, I'll try to get to it later today.

[sidewayss]

I modified this branch to remove my original change and make SyncEvent and SyncManager not experimental. I removed the experimental property from the SyncEvent constructor, but I'm not sure which other properties/methods of both of these to mark as non-experimental. That will require some review from you, @queengooborg. Feel free to make whatever changes those are and merge, otherwise tell me and I'll make them. Thanks.

[skyclouds2001]

ServiceWorkerRegistration.sync can also mark as non-experimental, too

[sidewayss]

I have tagged ServiceWorkerRegistration.sync as not experimental.