search

w3c / vc-data-model

W3C Verifiable Credentials v2.0 Specification
https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/
Other
299 stars 106 forks source link

Change usage to use throughout spec text #1561

Closed wip-abramson closed 1 month ago

wip-abramson commented 2 months ago

This P.R. addresses issue #1555

Just checking, I should only be changing the base index.html right?

Also, as I was going through this I noticed the spec still has 32 uses of the word usage. I believe in the examples.

For example: "Usage of the credentialSubject property"

Should we also be changing these to Use?

Preview | Diff

TallTed commented 2 months ago

Should we also be changing these to Use?

Yes, "use" is fully preferred to "usage". Depending on the specific phrasing, sometimes this change requires other minor rewording.

TallTed commented 2 months ago

I've just reviewed every occurrence of usage. I think all can and should be replaced by use, though a few instances will require rephrasing of the neighboring or containing phrase. I can produce a PR for this, after this one (#1561) is merged; or you could change them on your branch, within this PR, and I can then suggest the rephrasing (which I cannot suggest until the changes of usage makes the neighboring lines available for change requests).

wip-abramson commented 2 months ago

@TallTed I have replaced usage with use throughout the spec. I have mostly left any additional rephrasing required to you as suggested.

I renamed the P.R. to more accurately reflect the changes

wip-abramson commented 1 month ago

@TallTed I believe this addresses all uses of utiliz{e,es,ing,ed} throughout the spec.

msporny commented 1 month ago

There are merge conflicts with the huge security considerations grammar fix PR. Please fix the merge conflicts @wip-abramson and we can get this merged.

wip-abramson commented 1 month ago

@msporny should be good to go

msporny commented 1 month ago

@wip-abramson can you take care of @TallTed's suggestions so we can get this merged? https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1561#pullrequestreview-2346395835

I would, but it's not showing up in my source view for some reason... wonder if Ted submitted his changes based on some different/disconnected commit hash?

TallTed commented 1 month ago

Very odd. I made my suggestions on the /files view, but now that doesn't obviously include these paragraphs, and digging deeper, they're in the "untouchable" blue section of the document. Redone in #1569.

msporny commented 1 month ago

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