Open pchampin opened 2 years ago
While this will remove the immediate cause of the confusion flagged in #819, I don't think it's the best nor a complete solution, not least because there remains a link from controller
(line 1431) in the table preceding that where the link from controller
(line 1515) is being removed, which may lead other readers to think the second refers to the same definition as the first (following the principle of linking from first occurrence), which is basically the same confusion as exists now.
Is there no way to make each of these two table occurrences link to their appropriate, different dfn
?
I went for the minimal change, noticing that not all properties in the table are links anyway.
It would of course be possible to add a link to the correct definition of controller
, but then why not add such a link for all properties in the table... (if only for the sake of consistency). If the editors think it is appropriate, I can extend this PR.
I hadn't realized that only some of the terms in the (informative! a/k/a non-normative!) tables are linked to their (normative!) definitions. To my mind, because of the non-normative status of those tables, all the terms therein should be linked to their normative definitions.
I hadn't realized that only some of the terms in the (informative! a/k/a non-normative!) tables are linked to their (normative!) definitions. To my mind, because of the non-normative status of those tables, all the terms therein should be linked to their normative definitions.
I agree with Ted—that would be the best step.
done
addresses issue #819 by removing the wrong link from
VerificationMethod::controller
to the definition ofDIDDocument::controller
.Preview | Diff