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

@mgiuca commented on this pull request.



> @@ -522,13 +521,13 @@ <h2>
       </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.
+        [=Document/URL=] is not [=within manifest scope=] of the <a>application

I'm glad you are :) But I'd still prefer for them not to have to be so verbose.

Context: I've written enough sentences like this one:

> If the application context's active document's URL is not within scope of the application context's manifest

That's already pretty hard to read. We would have to change it to:

> If the application context's active document's URL is not within **manifest** scope of the application context's manifest

I added this to allow us to be less verbose ("within scope of the manifest" as opposed to "within scope of the navigation scope of the manifest"). Having to say "within manifest scope of the manifest" is hardly better than just deleting this convenience wrapper and using the URL-based one each time.

I'm not too concerned about people accidentally using the wrong one, since if they do, it just means they'll be linking to a slightly wrong position in the page. The meaning is clear and unambiguous: you're either talking about being within scope of a URL or within scope of a manifest.

-- 
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_r432284787