Re: Please rename trusted-content to trusted-contents

[Morgan Willcock <morgan@ice9.digital>]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

>>>> so if he is okay with that name, we are not in a bad place.
>>> I'm copying in Stefan Monnier, in case he has any comments.
>> Indeed, I hesitated between `trusted-content` and `trusted-contents` but
>> not long enough to learn which is right.
>
> OK, I tried to figure it out, but at least the info I found wasn't
> very definitive.  It seems to have to do with whether it's countable or
> not, or whether it describe the "conceptual ideas" contained as opposed
> to the actual elements contained.
> I'm not sure which is more appropriate in this case and even less sure
> that one of the two is wrong.
>
> A related question is what to do with `untrusted-content` (which is the
> identifier with which I aligned mine).  If we rename `trusted-content`,
> we should likely rename `untrusted-content` as well (and this one
> would require a backward compatibility alias).

Isn't it the file path that is being configured and trusted rather than
the file content(s)?  I would have expected something like trusted-paths
and untrusted-paths.

I only speak English, but "content(s)" seems more confusing to me
because another file with the same content(s) isn't necessarily going to
be treated in the same way.

I think similar features in other software will only refer to the
settings as locations to trust.  Here are two examples:
https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/workspace-trust
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/add-remove-or-change-a-trusted-location-in-microsoft-office-7ee1cdc2-483e-4cbb-bcb3-4e7c67147fb4

-- 
Morgan Willcock