Partial reference seems to include confusing `boolean`

[trueberryless]

📚 Subject area/topic

Page Partials

📋 Page(s) affected (or suggested, for new content)

https://docs.astro.build/en/reference/container-reference/#partial-option

📋 Description of content that is out-of-date or incorrect

In the sentence:

This is usually the behavior you want when rendering components.boolean so you can render components without a full page shell.

the "boolean" seems out of place. components.boolean is only mentioned this one time in the whole docs. Should it be partial: false instead?

As I am not 100% sure what it is supposed to mean, I created an issue. I traced the origin back to this PR but couldn't determine it's correctness.

Thanks to Tim Gates for pointing out this possible typo!

🖥️ Reproduction in StackBlitz (if reporting incorrect content or code samples)

No response

[ArmandPhilippot]

Looking at when this was added, I guess the autocomplete added boolean automatically after the dot and nobody noticed? So, I think this should be "components" without backticks.

[trueberryless]

Thanks for the confirmation, Armand!

I ask myself if we should think about rephrasing the sentence then, because it reads kinda weird and feel like it mentions "render components" twice, which is unnecessary:

This is usually the behavior you want when rendering components so you can render components without a full page shell.

What if we try one of these sentences instead (I marked the changed text bold and italic, but I would not make it actually bold and italic in the docs)? I'm leaning towards the last one personally:

This is usually the behavior you want when using components, so you can render them without a full page shell.

This is usually the behavior you want when rendering components, allowing you to do so without a full page shell.

This is usually the behavior you want, enabling you to render components without a full page shell.

[ArmandPhilippot]

Yeah, we probably don't need the "when rendering components" part, so the last one is probably better. "enabling you to" sounds a bit odd to me, but I'm not the best person to judge the wording. 😄 What comes to mind right now is:

This is usually the behavior you want, as it allows you to render components without a full page shell.

But feel free to send a PR!