-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 266
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve "x-" keyword description #1518
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was still unsure about the specific phrasing, but on reflection I think it does make sense and communicates the correct meaning and requirements.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Honestly, this still feels unclear to me. Readers have to make the connection that "implicitly defined" means that it's considered "recognized" by the implementation. I think it would be a lot easier on readers if we use the same terms in all the places we talk about this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
After discussion about avoiding the "recognized" ambiguity elsewhere, I'm no longer concerned about using that word in this section.
(Ref: #1512 (comment)) |
Still going to pull these changes in since I think the wording is a bit cleaner, even if it doesn't solve the original ask. That ask will be resolved as part of #1512. |
Per this Slack thread, we felt that the wording here doesn't do enough to describe "x-" keywords as "known" keywords.