Define implementation-defined #299
Conversation
Closes #210.
|
cc @hober |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's a bit unsatisfying that we have "user agent" plus "implementation-defined", so I'd slightly prefer "user-agent-defined". Note that HTML uses all three of "user-agent-defined", "user-agent defined", and "UA-defined".
Grammar-wise, I'm not sure whether "user-agent-defined" or "user-agent defined" is more correct... honestly I thought it'd be "user agent-defined"? https://english.stackexchange.com/q/2977/242244 seems to lean toward "user-agent-defined" but also points out "user-agent–defined" with an em dash as a clarity-enhancer.
Maybe we should just go with "implementation-defined" to avoid this mess... should we define "implementation" as a synonym for "user agent" perhaps?
|
Will you work on a follow-up to align HTML to this? :) |
|
Yeah, I was planning to. |
Closes #210.
I noticed that HTML has some instances of UA-defined. That or user-agent-defined might be reasonable alternatives.
Preview | Diff