Editorial comments

[iherman]

Some editorial notes on the spec. They are minor, and I think it is more efficient if they are listed in one issue, rather then lots of smaller issues

• Header part, related specification: the references to VCDM, DI, and the cryptosuites should be updated to their v1.1 version. Also, the Compact Binary Object Representation for Linked Data reference should be now CBOR-LD 1.0 (soon to be FPWD). The same reference in the introduction section should be changed, too

• Remark "This specification is experimental" should be removed

• "information about the barcode": is this statement correct? Shouldn't it be "information about the subject"? After all, the paragraph describes a mechanism, whereby any VC can be expressed as a barcode...

• The last two paragraphs of §1 have lots of overlaps. I wonder whether the penultimate paragraph could not be simply removed.

• Example 1 (and all the other examples): it would be better if it was clear in the example which terms are defined by the VC specification suite, which are defined by this spec, and which are here only as an example (and, in real life, are replaced by application specific terms).

• Example 5 is different from the others because it does not use the 'ecdsa-xi-2023' cryptosuite. Maybe worth emphasizing. Actually, either the first tab should contain the full VC (including the proof) or have a separate tab with the proof.

  Also: is it possible to add the tabs to the other examples, for the sake of consistency?

[wes-smith]

@iherman The above points have been largely addressed by #44 and the in-flight #52 - are you comfortable closing the issue? The main remaining point appears to be the tab structure on some examples, which I think I recall you saying on a call you aren't expecting in the near term.

[iherman]

I am looking at the editors' draft of May 12

• Header part, related specification: the references to VCDM, DI, and the cryptosuites should be updated to their v1.1 version. Also, the Compact Binary Object Representation for Linked Data reference should be now CBOR-LD 1.0 (soon to be FPWD). The same reference in the introduction section should be changed, too

The header part still refers to v2.0 of VCDM v2.0 and not v2.1. Also, the reference list refers to DI 1.0 and ECDSA 1.0. These should be consistent. TH CBOR-LD 1.0 reference in the ref list is to the github.io entry, it should be the FPWD.

• Example 1 (and all the other examples): it would be better if it was clear in the example which terms are defined by the VC specification suite, which are defined by this spec, and which are here only as an example (and, in real life, are replaced by application specific terms).

I did not see this done in #52. It is o.k. if it is postponed but we should keep that in mind.

• Example 5 is different from the others because it does not use the 'ecdsa-xi-2023' cryptosuite. Maybe worth emphasizing. Actually, either the first tab should contain the full VC (including the proof) or have a separate tab with the proof.

This has not been done in #52 either. That being said, reordering the examples mean that the reference of not using ecdsa-xi-2023 becomes unnecessary. Instead, it should be emphasized in the other two examples in my view...