Fix misleading component key documentation about the name key being inheritable

[juliendargelos]

In the "Components" section of the configuration documentation, it is made clear that the name key is not meant to be defined directly from components:

The keys used to define a component are the same as those used for Fields, except the name key.

website/src/docs/configuration.md

Line 206 in 796fc0b

The keys used to define a component are the same as those used for [Fields](#fields), **except** the `name` key (which is defined by the key in the `components` object).

And indeed, it is not possible to define a field with just a component key, so trying to inherit the name that would have been defined by the component itself throws an error in the cms. The fact that the name key is always required for all fields is also made clear in the "Fields" section:

Key	Type	Description
name	string	Required and must be unique across the content array.

website/src/docs/configuration.md

Line 105 in 796fc0b

| **`name`** | `string` | **Required and must be unique across the content array**. Machine name for the content entry. |

But the description about the component key is misleading as it implies that the name key can be inherited from components:

Key	Type	Description
component	string	[...] Properties defined directly on the field (like name, label, required) will override those inherited from the component. [...]

website/src/docs/configuration.md

Line 255 in 796fc0b

| **`component`** | `string` | Allows a field to inherit its properties (like `type`, `label`, nested `fields`, `options`, etc.) from a defined [Component](#components). The value should be the name (key) of the component to inherit from. Properties defined directly on the field (like `name`, `label`, `required`) will override those inherited from the component. The `type` inherited from the component takes precedence over any `type` defined on the field itself. |