Fix basic requirements of proof
#166
Conversation
TallTed
requested review from
msporny,
Wind4Greg and
seabass-labrax
as code owners
| <dfn class="lint-ignore">`proof`</dfn> property MUST be used. If present, its | ||
| value MUST be either a single object, or an unordered set of objects, expressed |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| <dfn class="lint-ignore">`proof`</dfn> property MUST be used. If present, its | |
| value MUST be either a single object, or an unordered set of objects, expressed | |
| <dfn class="lint-ignore">`proof`</dfn> property MUST be used and its | |
| value MUST be either a single object, or an unordered set of objects, expressed |
It's a bit strange to say "If present" for a property that MUST be present? Minor rewording suggestions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@msporny @dlongley -- Reading the whole paragraph, it's only a MUST "When expressing a data integrity proof on an object", so "if present" seems OK.
I think the "If present" phrasing covers any time the proof property is present, while the "and" phrasing only covers the proof property "When expressing a data integrity proof on an object".
Some additional rephrasing, possibly including other segments of the doc, may be needed to make the restrictions on the proof property clearer.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If you feel strongly about this, I'm fine w/ leaving it as is. I don't think the new wording I suggested changes the meaning of the sentence.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I prefer as-is, because this doesn't spark the need for further review/rewording.
Preview | Diff