Re: PLEASE REVIEW: VC doc ready for CR vote

I don't think these are CR blockers, but there's some stray normative
language in non-normative sections, in detail in [1], tl;dr:

* Normative language in a NOTE https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#h-note-3
* Subject is holder Appendix B:
https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#subject-is-the-holder
* And a lowercase "should" which perhaps needs to be an uppercase SHOULD
in Disputes: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#disputes

Also I think it's generally good practice to list the features at risk
in the SotD. Currently not all features at risk are /explicitly/ marked
as such, in that you can't ctrl+f for "at risk" and find them all. I
added the "atrisk" class to all the issues talking about features at
risk to enable this, so *it is now in the ED*, but *not *currently in
the static snapshot linked for voting.

Amy

[1] https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/394#issuecomment-473721395

On 18.3.19. 19:21, Christopher Allen wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 6:50 AM Daniel Burnett
> <daniel.burnett@consensys.net <mailto:daniel.burnett@consensys.net>>
> wrote:
>
>     Manu and others have worked extensively this past week to clear
>     CR-blocking issues so we can publish.
>
>     He has created a static version of the spec [1] for us to vote on.
>
>     We will vote Tuesday.  Please review in advance of the meeting.
>
>
> My top compliments to the editorial team that have put this draft
> together!
>
> I have re-read and reviewed the entire spec, with particular attention
> to the normative sections.  I have also looked at all the current open
> issues.
>
> I have found no problems in the normative sections, am reasonably
> happy with the non-normative ones, and do not believe that there are
> any substantive issues that should be CR-Blockers.
>
> I may not be able to make the meeting tomorrow morning, thus you have
> a +1 from me to accept this draft as a CR.
>
> -- Christopher Allen
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 March 2019 10:38:57 UTC