-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 60
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
Annex 2 and 3 typos #195
Merged
Merged
Annex 2 and 3 typos #195
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Id est (i.e.) is erroneously used here to introduce examples, this is a common confusion as pointed out in this reference (found via Wikipedia) https://www.dictionary.com/e/ie-vs-eg/.
On two occasions `age_over_NN` is defined with a value for `NN` other than 18. First using "<" (less than), later using "<>", which can either mean less or greater than or not equal to. Since there's no symbol in between the brackets, like a / or | to indicate alternate options, I've interpreted this to have the latter meaning. For clarity both occurences are replaced with `≠`. This is a unicode symbol outside of the basic ASCII character set and can cause trouble in LaTeX documents but the modern xelatex setup in use handles it transparently.
…period The indefinite article for "SD-JWT-compliant encoding," should be "an." Two common ways to determine the proper article are by eliding the adjective "an encoding" or pronouncing the acronym "an ess-dee..."
The `age_over_NN` attributes should not change at every one of the user's birthdays. That would imply they contain the exact current age, which is more information than the attribute is intended to convey. Rather the value of the attributes *may* change, for example when a user turns 18 `age_over_18` would change from false to true, but when they turn 17 or 19 there is no change. While `age_in_years` does change on every birthday, stating that it may change on every birthday is still correct.
pinamiranda
reviewed
Jun 26, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
pinamiranda
approved these changes
Jun 26, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changes should be approved. See my previous comment.
skounis
approved these changes
Jun 26, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Noticed some minor typos in annexes 2 and 3.01
and made two changes that affect semantics. Everything is in separate commits, which can be easily squashed/dropped/refactored.
Changes that affect meaning:
While age_in_years changes at every birthday, the age_over_NN attributes should not, as that would imply they contain the exact age in years, which would reveal more information than intended.
In my opinion
age_over_NN
can make sense for values of NN both less and greater than 18, hence "≠ 18". This is why I interpreted the secondNN <> 18
as the not-equals operator from some programming languages. The intent may however have been both less than OR greater than, which is functionally the same meaning but could be an intentional difference in presentation.