Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Some comments by Steven Rowat #48

brentzundel opened this issue Sep 23, 2019 · 1 comment


Copy link

@brentzundel brentzundel commented Sep 23, 2019

@msporny msporny added the editorial label Oct 1, 2019
@msporny msporny self-assigned this Oct 10, 2019
rhiaro added a commit to rhiaro/did-spec that referenced this issue Oct 22, 2019
@rhiaro rhiaro referenced this issue Oct 22, 2019

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@rhiaro rhiaro commented Oct 28, 2019

Everything in the original issue is addressed except for:

In Section “5.10 Extensibility”:

— Uses “we" and "us”; again different from the rest of the document.
— Less terse writing than the rest of the document to this point; more like a marketing section; ie., uses what appear to be strictly unnecessary phrases like “a simple matter of” and “developers are urged to”.

I believe it would be more in keeping with the rest if this section was rewritten slightly more tightly, and fully passive voice.

I agree with the comment, and think that the extensibility section reads like something that should be in an implementation guide rather than the spec. But I suspect there is history around that section originally getting written, and also note that it is very similar to the equivalent section in the VC spec.

I volunteer to rewrite that section "more tightly" if there is agreement that this is the right thing to do.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.