Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Clear up "encoding" vs "format" #234

Open
skef opened this issue Nov 8, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #241
Open

Clear up "encoding" vs "format" #234

skef opened this issue Nov 8, 2024 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #241
Assignees
@garretrieger

Comments

@skef
Copy link
Contributor

skef commented Nov 8, 2024

Section 6.1 talks about formats. Some things referring to table 6.1 (e.g. the various patchEncoding fields) discuss these as "encodings". Given how overloaded the term "encoding" is in the spec it seems preferable to use "format" consistently for this. And maybe to always talk about either "patch format" or "map format" so that those are not confused (maybe even changing the "format" fields to "mapFormat" fields).
@garretrieger
Copy link
Contributor

Sounds good to me. I'll make the changes.

@garretrieger garretrieger self-assigned this Nov 9, 2024
garretrieger added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 21, 2024
@garretrieger
Consistently Use 'patch format' instead of 'patch encoding'.
40de31e 
Fixes #234
@garretrieger garretrieger linked a pull request Nov 21, 2024 that will close this issue
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@garretrieger garretrieger

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Consistently Use 'patch format' instead of 'patch encoding'. w3c/IFT
2 participants
@skef @garretrieger