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

credentialSchema property not fully correct in PR#159 examples #164

Closed
David-Chadwick opened this issue Oct 12, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed
Assignees

Comments

@David-Chadwick
Copy link
Contributor

Whilst the first tab of Example 1 (application/vc+ld+json) is correct, I do not believe that the third tab (application/vc+ld+json+sd-jw) is correct as it places the credentialSchema as a property of the credentialSubject

@decentralgabe decentralgabe self-assigned this Oct 27, 2023
@decentralgabe
Copy link
Collaborator

I can't seem to find this. Maybe it has been fixed? Please let me know if you still see it.

@David-Chadwick
Copy link
Contributor Author

This is because the second and third tabs have been removed from the example. I do not know which PR did this, but I would have thought that the correct approach was to fix the tabs rather than to remove them. Personally I found the tabs to be useful as they showed how the VC evolved to be a JWT

@decentralgabe
Copy link
Collaborator

@OR13 thoughts?

@TallTed
Copy link
Member

TallTed commented Nov 6, 2023

[@David-Chadwick] the second and third tabs have been removed from the example

The tabs (both labels and content) of this example have been changed substantially, but I don't think anything has been removed. See the latest Editor's Draft.

Look particularly to where credentialSchema appears in what is now the fifth tab, now titled "Verified", which is part of what replaced what was in the third tab, then titled application/vc+ld+json+sd-jwt.

I believe that the concern about credentialSchema that @David-Chadwick raised in the initial comment here has been resolved.

@David-Chadwick
Copy link
Contributor Author

The tabs have come back and now the content is correct, so this issue can be closed.

I suspect that @decentralgabe and myself viewed a temporary draft that was in the process of being fixed as a result of this issue (the first step being to remove wrong content, and the second step being to add the corrected content).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants