Closed OR13 closed 1 year ago
"preview" does not handle respec's includes properly, so it is pretty much useless here. This seems to work:
https://raw.githack.com/w3c/vc-jwt/fixes-and-examples/index.html
@TallTed @andresuribe87 Thank you for your reviews!
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-04-05
I'm not challenging the move, but am curious about the reasoning behind moving the transformation to an appendix.
I personally think because it is a way to transform (not THE way), it should be in the appendix?
@brentzundel What @Sakurann said, it was also a change request on your original PR.
We feel it is important to be clear that different organizations might want to produce different JSON-LD based on their business use cases, at the face to face, we discussed this in depth, we don't want readers concluding there is "only one way" to map a JWT to a JSON-LD object.
@msporny
High level comments on this PR:
- It's huge and changes many normative statements simultaneously, please avoid massive PRs like this, it makes it very easy to miss important changes.
Yes, sadly this document started as a few sections cut out of the v1.1 specification and has received very few "large PRs" like this.... it needs a lot more contribution.
- The use of data-include has broken the PR Preview, which means that all examples are not viewable inline and the spec now requires you to download and run it locally to see the updates/changes. I doubt that most of the reviewers are doing this.
Interesting, do you think we should no use data include moving forward? I thought it was a best practice to use the features of ReSpec, but perhaps this one is not good to use.
- It adds CWT and COSE to the scope of VC-JWT, after feature freeze, which seems to be difficult to reconcile with scope of the VCWG Charter (and could lead to formal objections).
This PR does not add this, it moves the existing section, which was added in:
- It defines the 'transformation' algorithm in a way that won't be tested by this WG and thus we won't demonstrate interoperability on the transformation algorithm in this specification.
This PR does not define the transformation, it moves the transformation that was supplied in:
https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/60
To the appendix, as was requested here:
https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/60#issuecomment-1470905492
and partially implemented by @brentzundel
It took over an hour to review this PR, and I'm still not confident that I understand all of the details that are changing. It's difficult to approve a PR that introduces multiple questionable changes in scope and testing simultaneously under a vague description of "Editorial and non-editorial changes".
Thank you for your review.
I am sorry the document is not in better shape, it is not yet FPWD, perhaps we should delay FPWD and continue to make improvements to the document cc @brentzundel @Sakurann @selfissued .
If the document is not yet FPWD, is there any change to process that I should be following to help this document catch up in terms of quality?
Recall this documented started as a cut out of version 1.1 and has received relatively few changes since then, as most of our time has been spent discussing how the media types in the core data model interact with it.
I'm a strong +1 to rapidly updating the spec to make it better, so in that vein, I'd be a +1 to merging this, IF 1) issues are raised for all items of concern,
Thanks I think I have captured the major one here:
https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/issues/73
There are already several open issues that are addressing some of the comments you have left, specifically:
https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/issues/69
and 2) the WG is made aware of the change in scope for VC-JWT and the signal to not test the transformation algorithm in VC-JWT.
Happy to provide an update on the next call.
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-04-12
I have addressed the feedback provided.
Based on the call yesterday, I am merging this PR and will merge directly to main with no PRs until the document is ready to be called for FPWD.
I am befuddled by the merge a minute after the request for review.
What are you asking @msporny and I to review?
What are you asking @msporny and I to review?
He cleared our request for changes and merged. I don't think there was an expectation that we'd re-review. @OR13 is now operating in a "commit to main
" capacity and will notify the WG to do a full review of the spec, including all of his unreviewerd changes, before FPWD.
Lots of changes in this PR, since the document is in pretty rough shape.
I moved sections around, updated examples, adjusted old text copied from version 1.1, clarified how examples map to resolutions made regarding the core data model, and removed a should requirement for an unregistered and extraneous media type.
Preview | Diff