search

w3c / did-core

W3C Decentralized Identifier Specification v1.0
https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/
Other
395 stars 93 forks source link

Add definition for representation-specific entries #792

Closed clehner closed 2 years ago

clehner commented 2 years ago

This is intended as an editorial change to enable the term to be more easily referenced from other documents.

Preview | Diff

clehner commented 2 years ago

The lines added in this PR are updated in 6898a21 to wrap within 80 characters.

iherman commented 2 years ago

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-08-24

View the transcript ### 5. DID core issues _See github pull request [#792](https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/792), [#790](https://github.com/w3c/did-core/pull/790)._ **Manu Sporny:** Just wanted to draw attention to the two issues on DID Core. **Daniel Burnett:** Alrighty. … Since we don't have Joe on at the moment... let's just spend a few minutes on that, Manu. **Manu Sporny:** There are two PRs for DID Core: one of them is the acknowledgement section - I believe that is completely ready to merge... Well, there's one minor thing and then it's ready to merge. … I'm not hitting the merge button until the votes are in. I think that's the right thing to do? It won't autopublish... … The other Pull Request is for... Charles made a representation-specific entries change to the spec. I believe it's largely editorial. … I suggest we don't pull that in until after the votes are in and we're cleaning up the recommendation document. … Two questions: is that the process the chairs want? And does the group see any issue with pulling in these PRs? … Charles, it's strange to make changes to the specification after putting it to vote. But I think they're totally okay as it's editorial. > *Markus Sabadello:* +1 they're editorial **Manu Sporny:** "mostly editorial" -> I am asserting both of these things are entirely editorial - and would be surprised if anyone said otherwise. **Drummond Reed:** I've looked at them and agree it's editorial. Not an issue. > *Drummond Reed:* I also agree not to pull them into the final until after the vote is done. **Daniel Burnett:** I'm not hearing any objections to pulling them in - when the time is right. … I guess we could do it in the working copy... but they wouldn't apply until we get to the final specification. **Manu Sporny:** Editors... are we good to go? > *Ted Thibodeau Jr.:* +1 merge when it feels right **Brent Zundel:** To my understanding, he is satisfied. > *Drummond Reed:* +1
msporny commented 2 years ago

Editorial, multiple reviews, changes requested and made, no objections, merging.