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

@marcoscaceres commented on this pull request.



> @@ -496,21 +493,20 @@ <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 [=manifest/within scope=] of the [=application context=]'s
+        [=processed manifest=], the user agent SHOULD show a prominent UI
+        element indicating the [=Document/URL=] or at least its [=origin=],
+        including whether it is served over a secure connection. This UI SHOULD
+        differ from any UI used when the [=Document/URL=] is [=manifest/within
+        scope=] of the [=application context=]'s [=processed manifest=], in

I think I'm going to stick with "processed manifest" for these ones if that's ok. Even though you are right that it's implied by "within scope", it reminds the reader that it's not the unprocessed one that was downloaded. 

-- 
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#discussion_r444716753