- From: Yoshisato Yanagisawa <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 02:08:59 -0700
- To: w3c/ServiceWorker <ServiceWorker@noreply.github.com>
- Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2025 09:09:02 UTC
yoshisatoyanagisawa left a comment (w3c/ServiceWorker#1784) Thanks for pointing this out. The phrase "the registration’s storage key’s name to cache map" is based on the current definitions in the specification. [Section 5.1 of the specification](https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/#ref-for-dfn-name-to-cache-map) states, "Each storage key has an associated name to cache map". Since a `ServiceWorkerRegistration` has an associated storage key, the wording resulted in the current chain of possessives. That said, I agree that this phrasing can be a bit confusing. I'm open to suggestions for a clearer alternative. For instance, we could rephrase it to "the name to cache map associated with the registration's storage key". What do you think? -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1784#issuecomment-3139146401 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <w3c/ServiceWorker/issues/1784/3139146401@github.com>
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2025 09:09:02 UTC