- 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>
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