Minor JavaDoc and specification fixes

[sberyozkin]

Fixes #234.
Fixes #235.

@keilw has reported these 2 issues and this PR fixes them. I don't think it requires a 1.2.1 maintenance release, these are the obvious and old typo/text bugs, no-one has noticed it during the last few years, so I'd not make a big deal out of it - it will be in the next platform release anyway. That said, I don't mind much doing a 1.2.1 tag.

[sberyozkin]

Some Maven dependency pull issue, might take a few runs to pass

[keilw]

I will take care of the much wider-spread Jakarta EE / Java EE inconsistencies and outdated stuff.
While the spec update is clearer, one thing it does not fully explain, what if you enter a bogus claim name like "foo" do you get a null or "empty" Optional then or an exception?

[sberyozkin]

@keilw

I will take care of the much wider-spread Jakarta EE / Java EE inconsistencies and outdated stuff.

Sure, sounds good - note I'd appreciate that whatever we do at this stage at the spec level remains a minor editorial update; we'd need to coordinate with the rest of MP specs in how we approach JakartaEE level updates for 2.0.

one thing it does not fully explain, what if you enter a bogus claim name like "foo" do you get a null or "empty" Optional then or an exception?

It is not a bogus claim - this is just a custom claim name which may or may nor exist. See JavaDocs, it will be null.

[sberyozkin]

@radcortez @keilw @ederks85 @Emily-Jiang Hey, I'll start a discussion next week about 1.2.1

[keilw]

@sberyozkin You mean "foo" would be a custom claim, well according to JWT anything would be possible ;-)

As at least the Annotation spec: https://jakarta.ee/specifications/annotations/1.3/annotations-spec-1.3.html in 1.x never seems to have been completely transferred over properly until 2.x that is the only place where referring to at least the JSR documents is the only way, but it still should be called Jakarta EE there because it is.

[sberyozkin]

@keilw

You mean "foo" would be a custom claim, well according to JWT anything would be possible ;-)

Is it a question or assertion ? Yes, a token may have not only standard but custom claims, these claims can be simple or complex, and can have whatever names the users have decided to name them with

As at least the Annotation spec: https://jakarta.ee/specifications/annotations/1.3/annotations-spec-1.3.html in 1.x never seems to have been completely transferred over properly until 2.x that is the only place where referring to at least the JSR documents is the only way, but it still should be called Jakarta EE there because it is.

I don't think it is relevant to this PR

thanks