Re: [whatwg/url] Editorial: fold cannot-be-base-URL into path (#655)

@alwinb commented on this pull request.

I like this a lot, much better!

> @@ -2603,6 +2591,21 @@ these steps. They return an <a>ASCII string</a>.
  <li><p>Return <var>output</var>.
 </ol>
 
+<p>The <dfn export lt="URL path serializer|URL path serializing">URL path serializer</dfn> takes a
+<a for=/>URL</a> <var>url</var> and then runs these steps. They return an <a>ASCII string</a>.
+
+<ul>
+ <li><p>If <var>url</var> does not have a <a for=url>hierarchical path</a>, then return

If going with the suggestion by @TimothyGu, this can be rephrased as
"If url has an opaque path, then return url's path". 

> @@ -1811,18 +1808,16 @@ these steps:
         <var>base</var>'s <a for=url>scheme</a> is equal to <var>url</var>'s <a for=url>scheme</a>,
         set <var>state</var> to <a>special relative or authority state</a>.
 
-        <p class=note>This means that <var>base</var>'s <a for=url>cannot-be-a-base-URL</a> is
-        false.
+        <p class=note>This means that <var>base</var> has a <a for=url>hierarchical path</a>.

Maybe we can state
"This means that base is special and has a hierarchical path"

Or possibly
"This means that base is special and therefore has a hierarchical path",
to connect to the previous note about that. 

>  
-<p class="note no-backref">A <a lt="is special">special</a> <a for=/>URL</a> always has a
-<a for=list lt="is empty">non-empty</a> <a for=url>path</a>.
+<p class=note>A <a lt="is special">special</a> <a for=/>URL</a> always has a

The statement holds as a consequence of the parser, right?

We could state it as an invariant on URL records here instead, one that the parser maintains? I personally find it easier to think about it that way, but I'm curious what others think. 


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/pull/655#pullrequestreview-774149658