- From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 22:40:21 +0100
- To: public-credentials@w3.org
Ok thanks, explanation accepted regards David On 28/06/2017 14:23, Manu Sporny wrote: > On 06/28/2017 06:08 AM, David Chadwick wrote: >> But in the list in the playground, Subject is not an alternative for >> Role-C. The nearest you have is Subject's Agent, and your original >> sentence still does not make sense when using that :-) > > When I wrote the email, Subject was an option. > > Then, yesterday, the VCWG rejected Subject as an option during the call > and the playground was updated as a result. Thus removing Subject as an > option. > > So, yes, we could simplify the language now, but the poll has started > and so we shouldn't modify the language while the poll is operating. > > Are we having fun yet? :) > >>> I'm not making the change because of this reason >> >> So I do not think it is a valid reason for rejecting the change > > It was a valid reason at the time, and then shortly after the VCWG > meeting it became an invalid reason. :) > > We can word smith the language /after/ the poll is done before it goes > in the specification (or after). > > In short - there is plenty of time to make the modification that you > suggested. We just shouldn't make it while the poll is running. I'll try > to remember the language modification when I update the spec next, and > if I fail to do so, I hope you will catch it and raise an issue. > > -- manu >
Received on Wednesday, 28 June 2017 21:41:01 UTC