Remove iconURL and name from FederatedCredential

[Elchi3]

See https://w3c.github.io/webappsec-credential-management/#federated, the FederatedCredential interface has no members "iconURL" or "name": The constructor has these as parameters but their support seems to be identical to the constructor (and other constructor parameters also exist), so I think we should remove this here as not needed.

[github-actions]

Tip: Review these changes grouped by change (recommended for most PRs), or grouped by feature (for large PRs).

[caugner]

Were these meant to record support for the options of the FederatedCredential constructor?

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/FederatedCredential#examples mentions these, whereas https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/FederatedCredential/FederatedCredential#parameters doesn't.

[Elchi3]

Were these meant to record support for the options of the FederatedCredential constructor?

Yes, and as I said above:

The constructor has these as parameters but their support seems to be identical to the constructor (and other constructor parameters also exist), so I think we should remove this here as not needed.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/FederatedCredential#examples mentions these, whereas https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/FederatedCredential/FederatedCredential#parameters doesn't.

The MDN constructor page seems outdated to me, it should mention options.

[caugner]

their support seems to be identical to the constructor (and other constructor parameters also exist), so I think we should remove this here as not needed

I think we should cover constructor options, even those that were supported from the beginning. This makes it explicit that developers can use theses, and allows MDN to add inline support statuses in the future.

My understanding is that the "don't add subfeature if support is equal to parent" only applies to behavioral subfeatures?!

Edit: In other words, instead of removing, I would opt for moving these features below the constructor feature.

[Elchi3]

I think that would require to add all constructor options then, otherwise just adding these two sort of implies that the others aren't supported.

[caugner]

I think that would require to add all constructor options then, otherwise just adding these two sort of implies that the others aren't supported.

I think there are other examples where BCD is not complete, but here I would still suggest to move those two subfeatures, and file an issue about this missing options.