W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > August 2019

Re: Created DID Spec Final Community Group Report

From: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 01:08:37 +0400
To: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <13fa7686-e33e-d779-b01a-ddfdb143005e@danubetech.com>
Thanks Steven,

I just checked with Manu.. Since we already created the Final Community
Group Report, we'll wait until the DID WG is formed before making
additional changes.

We should keep track of your comments as issues or PRs in the repo:
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/

If you like, feel free to do that, otherwise I'd also be happy to do it
for you.

Markus

On 8/11/19 10:48 PM, Steven Rowat wrote:
> On 2019-08-10 2:02 pm, Markus Sabadello wrote:
> ...> 1. Created a static copy of the DID Spec Final Community Group
> Report
>> here:
>> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/did-spec/CGFR/2019-08-10/
> ...
>> In that case, I think the next step is for everyone to review, and
>> for the W3C CCG Chairs to publish the CGFR.
>>
>> Markus
>
> Greetings,
> and my comments on the above CGFR DIDs v0.13 page:
>
> Great work!
> Overall seems fully comprehensible.
>
> Only three niggles that slowed/confused my reading:
>
>
> In Section “4.7 Fragment”:
>
> Is the following possibly meant as an Issue, that should be in pink
> background? :
>
> “It is desirable that we enable tree-based…”
>
> If not, I think it should be recast into the passive voice, since the
> use of “we” is unsettling; before this point I believe all grammar has
> been in the passive voice (except for one previous pink “Issue” that
> contains “we”).
>
> Plus that sentence “It is desirable that we…” is long and convoluted
> and I find it difficult to follow, so maybe best if it is also recast
> into two or more sentences?
>
>
> In Section “5.10 Extensibility”:
>
> — Uses “we" and "us”; again different from the rest of the document.
> — Less terse writing than the rest of the document to this point; more
> like a marketing section; ie., uses what appear to be strictly
> unnecessary phrases like “a simple matter of” and “developers are
> urged to”.
>
> I believe it would be more in keeping with the rest if this section
> was rewritten slightly more tightly, and fully passive voice.
>
>
> In Section “6.2 JSON-LD”:
>
> — I believe the term “syntactic sugars” is unnecessarily rare (I had
> to look it up) for the widest possible readership. It also seems
> unnecessary given the explanation of the paragraph it is set in. I
> suggest changing to:
> “The most noteworthy [of these] provided by JSON-LD are:...”
>
>
> Plus niggling niggle:
>
> in Section 2
> Period missing after “...previous transaction” ...
>
>
> That’s all… :-)
>
> Steven
>
>
Received on Monday, 12 August 2019 21:09:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:24:55 UTC