Editorial issues cont'd

[kimdhamilton]

Breaking out remaining issues from #245

Line no	Type	Suggestion
84	Clarification	DID (and VC definitions) do not link to w3c specs. This is likely intentional but could be confusing as the audience will have a mix of understanding of the specs / context. Should we refer to the specs as informative? Do we need to clarify definitions are broader?
137, 187	Clarification	"Presentation Definitions are objects that articulate what proofs a Verifier requires." > "...what ^claims/credentials^ and proofs"

Recommendation from previous WG call (line 84)

• agreed, plus consider case-by-case where/how things are used
• search "ref:" for ease of finding

[kimdhamilton]

Inside "Structure of this Document" add note that examples may use VCs and DIDs. Remove from definition

[JaceHensley]

closed #332