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

Re: Created DID Spec Final Community Group Report

From: Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 17:52:52 -0700
To: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <8c1d7a00-c89a-55ef-0879-74e7647b326e@sunshine.net>
On 2019-08-12 2:08 pm, Markus Sabadello wrote:
> 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.

Sorry I misunderstood your announcement email; I thought it meant for 
CCG members to review it.

And yes, thank you very much, I struggled with GitHub about three 
years ago and have forgotten most of what I knew, so I'd prefer you 
entered the comments as PRs or as you wish.

Steven


> 
> 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 Tuesday, 13 August 2019 00:53:12 UTC

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