"Meta viewport allows for zoom" (b4f0c3): Explicit meaning of 'has'

[Jym77]

Meta viewport allows for zoom was using sentence like "the content attribute value has the property…" with different meaning of "has" in the Applicability and Expectation. As exemplified in Passed Example 3, the Applicability is concerned about the presence of the substring in the content value (as written); while the Expectation is concerned about the presence of the property in the key-value pairs list after parsing and dropping the value as written.

I've chose to keep the different meanings and make them explicit in order to keep PE3 as a Passed example. Another possibility would have been to always used the parsed and translated key-value pairs list and make PE3 an Inapplicable example, which I feel wasn't the intention of the latest rewrite of the rule in #1835.

I've also added an AS note since it is not clear all UAs behave the same way.

I'm not sure the links to the suggested algorithm are fully needed, but I felt it was hard to justify why certain values are dropped without some reference.

Closes issue(s):

• closes "Meta viewport allows for zoom" (b4f0c3) should explain what "having" a property means #1982

Need for Call for Review:
This will require a 1 week Call for Review (Clarification to Applicability and Expectation without changing the meaning).

---

Pull Request Etiquette

When creating PR:

• Make sure you're requesting to pull a branch (right side) to the develop branch (left side).
• Make sure you do not remove the "How to Review and Approve" section in your pull request description

After creating PR:

• Add yourself (and co-authors) as "Assignees" for PR.
• Add label to indicate if it's a Rule, Definition or Chore.
• Link the PR to any issue it solves. This will be done automatically by referencing the issue at the top of this comment in the indicated place.
• Optionally request feedback from anyone in particular by assigning them as "Reviewers".

When merging a PR:

• Close any issue that the PR resolves. This will happen automatically upon merging if the PR was correctly linked to the issue, e.g. by referencing the issue at the top of this comment.

How to Review And Approve

• Go to the “Files changed” tab
• Here you will have the option to leave comments on different lines.
• Once the review is completed, find the “Review changes” button in the top right, select “Approve” (if you are really confident in the rule) or "Request changes" and click “Submit review”.
• Make sure to also review the proposed Call for Review period. In case of disagreement, the longer period wins.

Concern answered

[carlosapaduarte]

Still not clear about the expectation targeting the correct thing

Comment answered

Changes done.

[carlosapaduarte]

I suggest a revision of the way the value computing is specified, but I'm approving already because I believe you current description is sufficient.

Tried to implement suggestion

Changes done

[WilcoFiers]

I like this direction much better. I do think you can be a bit less verbose.

Changes accepted

[tombrunet]

Somewhat minor comment, but hoping to clean this up before approving.

[tombrunet]

Is there a reason that this new example was added in the middle rather than the end? I'm not sure that we're strict about this, but if there's something out there already that refers to Pass Example 2, that reference would be bad since Pass Example 2 is now Pass Example 3. I'm sure it happens anyway when we remove examples, but I don't see a reason to do that in this case.

[Jym77]

Yes, I wanted to keep the user-scalable tests together, and the maximum-scale together. I think it makes the rule more readable than if we mix them (less need to switch context).

Our test cases numbers are absolutely not stable, and we should not link to them directly. This is acceptable when referring to them in issues, … but we shouldn't, e.g., have a rule linking to an example with a passed-example-2 id. If we need to link inside rule, we should manually had an anchor.

Concern answered.

[Jym77]

Call for Review ends on October 12th.

[Jym77]

Call for review has ended, merging.