css.types.timeline-range-name - Missing compatibility data

[estelle]

What type of issue is this?

Incorrect support data (example: BrowserX says "86" but support was added in "40")

What information was incorrect, unhelpful, or incomplete?

view progress timelines are supported in some browsers. the data should match that of the animation range properties, all of which accept this data type https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/Properties/animation-range

What browsers does this problem apply to, if applicable?

No response

What did you expect to see?

bcd table

Did you test this? If so, how?

missing

Can you link to any release notes, bugs, pull requests, or MDN pages related to this?

No response

Do you have anything more you want to share?

No response

MDN URL

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Reference/Values/timeline-range-name

MDN metadata

MDN page report details

• Query: css.types.timeline-range-name
• Report started: 2026-01-15T15:50:22.059Z

[caugner]

I realize I'm not entirely sure what it means for a browser to support <timeline-range-name> in general, as opposed to accepting this type on the animation-range* properties whose formal syntax includes it?

The Chromium repo has no match for timeline-range-name, whereas the WebKit repo does.

@estelle Can you share how you determined that some browsers support this?

PS: Ideally, you could propose a collector test for this type.

[estelle]

@estelle Can you share how you determined that some browsers support this?

There are 6 named values. I've been testing in the dev tools by entering the following and seeing if it's crossed out or accepted:

animation-range-end: 33%;
animation-range-end: normal;
animation-range-end: fred; /* should fail */
animation-range-end: 33% cover;
animation-range-end: contain;
animation-range-end: entry;
animation-range-end: 33% entry-crossing;
animation-range-end: exit;
animation-range-end: 33% exit-crossing;

that doesn't mean they support it correctly, just that they know what it is, so it's not a good way to test.