followup to #226, further clarifying semantics between jwt claims and vc properties

[TallTed]

_Originally posted by @TallTed in https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pull/226#discussion_r1490127211_

Edited somewhat for posting as a new issue.

Answering @David-Chadwick's https://github.com/w3c/vc-jose-cose/pull/226#issuecomment-1944514573 --

@decentralgabe This PR was merged without addressing my requested editorial change.

I think you're referring to this comment as your "requested editorial change".

Please note that your intent was not obvious because you did not submit it as a change request using the GitHub tooling, which would have shown the existing PR content --

        Implementers SHOULD avoid setting JWT claims to values that conflict with
        verifiable credential properties, especially with pairs such as
        `iss` and `issuer`, `jti` and `id`, and `sub` and `credentialSubject.id`.

-- in contrast to your suggestion --

        Implementers SHOULD avoid setting JWT claims to values that conflict with
        verifiable credential properties when the claims and properties refer to the same concept, for example,
        `iss` and `issuer`, `jti` and `id`, and `sub` and `credentialSubject.id`.

I suggest the following --

        Implementers SHOULD avoid setting JWT claims to values that conflict with
        the values of verifiable credential properties when a claim and property 
        pair refer to the same conceptual entity, especially with pairs such as
        `iss` and `issuer`, `jti` and `id`, and `sub` and `credentialSubject.id`.
        For example, JWK claim `iss` should not be set to a value which conflicts
        with the value of verifiable credential property `issuer`.

I think this change should only touch this paragraph, is editorial, and hopefully is not controversial.

[David-Chadwick]

@TallTed I like your improved text, thanks