Re: [w3c/manifest] chore: refactor and export scope terms (#882)

@mgiuca commented on this pull request.



>          </li>
       </ol>
       <p>
-        A <a>URL</a> <var>target</var> is said to be <dfn data-lt=
-        "within-scope-manifest">within scope of a manifest</dfn>
-        <var>manifest</var> if <var>target</var> is <a>within scope</a> of the
-        navigation scope of <var>manifest</var>.
+        A [=URL=] |target:URL| is <dfn data-export="">within scope of a
+        manifest</dfn> if the |target| is [=URL/within scope=] of the

Missing `|manifest|` (i.e., this is a function of two parameters: _target_ and _manifest_).

>          </li>
       </ol>
       <p>
-        A <a>URL</a> <var>target</var> is said to be <dfn data-lt=
-        "within-scope-manifest">within scope of a manifest</dfn>
-        <var>manifest</var> if <var>target</var> is <a>within scope</a> of the
-        navigation scope of <var>manifest</var>.
+        A [=URL=] |target:URL| is <dfn data-export="">within scope of a
+        manifest</dfn> if the |target| is [=URL/within scope=] of the
+        [=navigation scope=] (i.e., [=URL/within scope=] of the

"of the navigation scope of _manifest_ (i.e., within scope of _manifest_'s `scope` member)."

Slight incongruity with the fact that "navigation scope" isn't defined as being "of a manifest", it just is a thing. But you have to say "of the manifest" here, otherwise we aren't defining "within scope of a manifest", just "within scope (of an implied context)".

Probably, we should change the definition of "navigation scope" to be "the navigation scope of a manifest is ...".

> @@ -496,21 +492,19 @@ <h2>
         unexpected behavior, use a scope ending in a <code>/</code>.
       </div>
       <p>
-        If the <a>application context</a>'s <a>active document</a>'s
-        [=Document/URL=] is not <a data-lt="within-scope-manifest">within
-        scope</a> of the <a>application context</a>'s manifest, the user agent
-        SHOULD show a prominent UI element indicating the [=Document/URL=] or
-        at least its <a>origin</a>, including whether it is served over a
-        secure connection. This UI SHOULD differ from any UI used when the
-        [=Document/URL=] is <a>within scope</a>, in order to make it obvious
-        that the user is navigating off scope.
+        If the [=application context=]'s [=active document=]'s [=Document/URL=]
+        is not [=within scope of a manifest=], the user agent SHOULD show a

I see, this suggests the above change to remove the second _manifest_ parameter from "within scope of a manifest" was deliberate. I think that was a mistake.

This now reads as "if the document URL is within scope of **any** manifest, no need to show UI", which isn't right. This should not change; it should still read "If [the URL] is not within scope of the application context's manifest".

Aside: I previously wanted "within scope [of a manifest]" to be usable without having to write "of a manifest" every time, so it acts as an overloaded function with the same name; I can simply write "within scope of _some-url_" or "within scope of _some-manifest_" and the correct one is invoked, based on context. I thought you agreed that would be possible, by defining it as `[=URL/within scope=]` and `[=manifest/within scope=]` so that when rendered, they both just read as "within scope" but they link to the correct overload. Did this change?

> @@ -549,9 +543,8 @@ <h3>
           Deep links
         </h3>
         <p>
-          A <dfn>deep link</dfn> is a URL that is <a data-lt=
-          "within-scope-manifest">within scope</a> of an <a>installed web
-          application</a>'s manifest.
+          A <dfn>deep link</dfn> is a URL that is [=within scope of a
+          manifest=].

Similarly, this should not change.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/882#pullrequestreview-432084356