search

eu-digital-identity-wallet / eudi-doc-architecture-and-reference-framework

The European Digital Identity Wallet
https://eu-digital-identity-wallet.github.io/eudi-doc-architecture-and-reference-framework/
Other
431 stars 60 forks source link

Very minor spelling correction #229

Closed Nieuwlaar closed 2 months ago

david-bakker commented 2 months ago

Good point, @pinamiranda ! Indeed my earlier answer to Stavros was incorrect; each use case always must use one or more of these flows. Thanks for being sharp :-).

Nieuwlaar commented 2 months ago

Clear. How about adding 'must' for clarity? (I updated this PR accordingly)

pinamiranda commented 2 months ago

@Nieuwlaar , probably we should use "shall" instead of "must". @david-bakker , do you agree?

For context, in my opinion, “shall” is typically used in legal or formal documents to indicate a requirement or obligation, while “must” is often used in general contexts to express necessity or obligation.

david-bakker commented 2 months ago

In general I agree. However, regarding this specific document there is another aspect: we agreed to not include any requirements in the ARF main document. Requirements should go only in Annex 2. So actually I think the sentence is perfect as it is and we should not change it.

Sorry about not remembering this earlier...

pinamiranda commented 2 months ago

Ok @david-bakker , you're right. Thank you

skounis commented 2 months ago

@pinamiranda From your reply to @david-bakker I understand that you agree with his position that we should not change the text, so we do not add the must word in the sentence.

After this however you approved this PR which introduces the addition of the work must. Something that contradicts the previous.

Could you please clarify? Should we keep the text as it is and ignore this PR or should we merge it and add the word must in the text?

pinamiranda commented 2 months ago

@skounis I understand that @david-bakker mentioned that ‘must’ was acceptable and we should not change it to ‘shall’ (as ‘shall’ could be interpreted as a requirement). Since my question was about using ‘must’ or ‘shall’, I agreed with @david-bakker that ‘must’ was the best option, and I approved the change.

skounis commented 2 months ago

In general I agree. However, regarding this specific document there is another aspect: we agreed to not include any requirements in the ARF main document. Requirements should go only in Annex 2. So actually I think the sentence is perfect as it is and we should not change it.

Sorry about not remembering this earlier...

@pinamiranda My understanding here is that @david-bakker suggests to keep the sentence as it is. So we do not apply the only change the PR suggest

image

cc @david-bakker @digeorgi

david-bakker commented 2 months ago

Hi both, sorry about the confusion! I indeed meant to say that we use neither 'shall' nor 'must' in the ARF main document, because it only states facts. So, as Stavros says, we should not accept the PR.