Should page bodies highlight alternative names?

[ddbeck]

Inspired by mdn/browser-compat-data#12724.

Some web platform features have prefixed or other non-standard names associated with them. For example, a CSS property ruby-position might also be known to web developers as -webkit-ruby-position. Often, these alternative names are recorded in browser compat data and reported via the compat tables (though not always: something like "flexbox" for "flexible box model" wouldn't be covered by BCD).

Right now, there's no conventional way to include such alternative names in the page body, particularly on reference pages. This may present barriers to learning about and adopting standardized features. For example, an in-page search for -webkit-ruby-position doesn't return anything, because it's only in the table and hidden by default.

This raises a few related questions:

1. Should we highlight these historic names in page bodies? (I think so.)
2. If we should, what should that look like to readers?
3. If we should, what should that look like to authors? Should any part of it be generated? If so, which parts?