Try to make the Dockerfile easy to understand/read.

PRs will introduce various mechanisms step by step. Some of these have issues already. A possible breakdown could be: Annotation collection using instance values (links also does this) Defining annotations to which multiple keywords contribute (this is new, see Need more details of annotation collection #530) Defining subschema and keyword processing results to include annotations Processing sequence for keywords that dynamically rely on the results of static keywords The actual definition of unevaluatedProperties An example of unevaluatedProperties

There's a problem with 401 Unauthorized, the HTTP status code for authentication errors. And that’s just it: it’s for authentication, not authorization. Receiving a 401 response is the server telling you, “you aren’t authenticated–either not authenticated at all or authenticated incorrectly–but please reauthenticate and try again.” To help you out, it will always include a WWW-Authenticate header that describes how to authenticate.

So, for authorization I use the 403 Forbidden response. It’s permanent, it’s tied to my application logic, and it’s a more concrete response than a 401. Receiving a 403 response is the server telling you, “I’m sorry. I know who you are–I believe who you say you are–but you just don’t have permission to access this resource. Maybe if you ask the system administrator nicely, you’ll get permission. But please don’t bother me again until your predicament changes.”

It might be worth moving the latest updates to the top of this answer. I had to go through the whole thing to get to the best answer, flexbox.

For better understanding of something that is complicated, just make it more simplier. In this example, just split the word into atoms, like these: Update - UP_DATE - make it up to date; Upgrade - UP_GRADE - move it to the upper (or next) grade (or level).

--tag-rename '':'my-module-' (the single quotes are unnecessary, but make it clearer to a human that we are replacing the empty string as a prefix with my-module-)

2 out of 3 people in my household do not find it easy to understand. Maybe that is is not representative, but keep in mind that something you yourself understand (or in this case think you understand) always seems easy.

It is much easier to track what is going on within the activity. Instead of transporting additional state via ctx, you expose the outcome via an additional end event.

So why the over-complication? What we got now is replicating a chain of && in the former version. This time, however, you will know which condition failed and what went in by using tracing. Look at the trace above - it’s impossible to not understand what was going on.

Just to reiterate the discussion on the RFC, there was a suggestion that we change <svelte:slot slot="foo"> to <svelte:fragment slot="foo">, since it's the counterpart to a <slot> rather than an equivalent to it

Got a bit sidetracked into refactoring the Element visitor code, so haven't actually started on the event handler stuff per se, but that'll come soon. Element stuff is starting to feel a bit more logical and easier to follow.

In the context of software engineering, I've always used "dependent" and "dependee".

One of the significant differences between the two is that a call to a partially applied function returns the result right away, not another function down the currying chain; this distinction can be illustrated clearly for functions whose arity is greater than two.

As a result, I end up quoting multiple people, sometimes quoting several people back-to-back, before even writing my reply. In those instances it feels like I'm not properly citing those individuals. I feel like it might seem I'm not providing new readers appropriate context for a given quote. It might also be implied that separate quotes are from the same person, leading to mis-attribution.

“allow/deny are simply clearer terms” — now that’s an actual, technically useful argument.

Many also question how the average user with little knowledge of the GDPR will react to being asked so many questions regarding consent. Will they be confused? Probably at first. It will be up to each business to create a consent form that is easy to understand, while being at the same time comprehensive and informative

Be clear and unambiguous. The average user should be easily able to understand what they’re consenting to;

Add-ons must function only as described, and should provide an appealing user experience. Based on the description of the add-on, a user must be able to understand and use the add-on’s features without requiring expert knowledge.

One of the main threads of the GDPR is providing clear and transparent information to individuals about data collected, how it is processed, and the lawful basis for this processing.