Update JSON Processing section to Credential-Type-Specific Processing.

[msporny]

This PR attempts to address issue #1290 by applying the result of the VCWG poll to rename the section to "Credential-type-specific Processing". Here are the results of the poll:

It also updates the language in an attempt to eliminate the use of "JSON Processing" and replace it with something that the VCWG, and @awoie -- specifically, will hopefully find more palatable.

---

Preview | Diff

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-11-15

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

1. poll results.

Manu Sporny: We should review the results from the poll.
… Perhaps people could emote here to add late votes?

Joe Andrieu: what's the URL for the poll?

Dave Longley: https://www.opavote.com/en/vote/5254957337935872.

Manu Sporny: The context is that we decided a few weeks ago to run a poll. We wanted to change the name of a certain aspect. It looks like we'll choose to 'Credential Type-specific' processing.

Orie Steele: Of these options, "Credential Type" is probably the best, but it omits the fact that the context can change information regardless of credential type.

Manu Sporny: I have already created a PR. I suggest that we close the poll and I can modify the PR to show the chosen result.

Dave Longley: Orie: we should mention immutable or "semantically immutable" contexts better in the section.

See github pull request vc-data-model#1351.

See github issue vc-data-model#1290.

Orie Steele: There was also a thread in the W3C CCG on this topic recently... https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2023Nov/0030.html.

Joe Andrieu: I appreciate the term 'limited' but I don't like the term 'unlimited'. I think that could be a problem.

Joe Andrieu: +1 to get us unstuck.

Manu Sporny: The poll is not a binding vote, so we can still take into account other views.

Joe Andrieu: I'll add here (so the meeting can move on) that I also don't think the distinction is valid. It isn't a choice between applications that can work with any credential or those with specific credentials. =(.

Brent Zundel: It is OK to have a compromise, but I would like to avoid spending further time on the topic during this meeting.

[TallTed]

Hopefully improving clarity...

[msporny]

Editorial, multiple reviews, changes requested and made, no objections, merging.