search

kazuho / draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority

Other
6 stars 4 forks source link

use less browser-specific terms #38

Closed kazuho closed 5 years ago

kazuho commented 5 years ago

This PR attempts to describe the urgency levels using terms that are less specific to web browsers or how the web browsers process the responses.

@rmarx @pmeenan @LPardue Thoughts?

rmarx commented 5 years ago

I'm fine with default and supplementary, but am indeed not a fan of "prerequisite".

Using a thesaurus, some options that I would find preferable: "essential", "core", "cardinal", "critical" (though that might conflate with the meaning of the "critical path"), or, nicely symmetric with supplementary: "necessary".

I wouldn't bikeshed this too much though. I'm fine with whatever as long as it doesn't change existing semantics, so "prerequisite" is ok as well.

LPardue commented 5 years ago

Although perhaps technically you learn the dependency during the document load and parse (not before or after it) so maybe we use the prefix "peri" i.e. perirequisite. :laughing:

kazuho commented 5 years ago

Although perhaps technically you learn the dependency during the document load and parse (not before or after it) so maybe we use the prefix "peri" i.e. perirequisite. 😆

One of the things I really enjoy about coauthoring with @LPardue is that I can learn a lot about English and English culture (maybe British to some extent, but I do not know). It's a nice spice while working on a dry technical writing.

That said, I think we are fine with "prerequisite" here, because we are talking about "using" the document rather than "processing" it. One of the reasons I prefer making this change is that the new terms more closely aligns to "using" compared to the current terms.

LPardue commented 5 years ago

Yeah it works fine for me. I just cant help myself making silly jokes. Let's merge

pmeenan commented 5 years ago

LGTM.

kazuho commented 5 years ago

@rmarx @LPardue @pmeenan Thank you for your comments. Merged.