Skip to content

Link to registry inclusion criteria definitions #236

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Link to registry inclusion criteria definitions #236

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

mohamedamir
Copy link
Contributor

@mohamedamir mohamedamir commented May 13, 2025 •
edited by pr-preview bot
Loading

Before this PR, the definitions were created but never linked it, which causes ReSpec warnings,

Preview | Diff

@mohamedamir mohamedamir requested a review from a team as a code owner May 13, 2025 09:41
@mohamedamir mohamedamir force-pushed the link-to-register-inclusion-criteria-definitions branch from ee78854 to ae3ddbd Compare May 13, 2025 09:45
@timcappalli
Copy link
Collaborator

I don't think this is necessary as term definitions don't typically link to where they're used. It should be the opposite (the table headings link down to the definitions).

@mohamedamir
Copy link
Contributor Author

mohamedamir commented May 13, 2025 •
edited
Loading

I don't think this is necessary as term definitions don't typically link to where they're used. It should be the opposite (the table headings link down to the definitions).

@timcappalli
Yes, this was my understanding as well, but I got confused by the current state.
So should I do the opposite or remove the definition tags altogether?
As of today, they are throwing ReSpec warnings and I believe we should get this fixed before publishing the FWPD.

WDYT?

@timcappalli timcappalli added the agenda+ Add to the weekly agenda label May 13, 2025
@timcappalli
Copy link
Collaborator

@mohamedamir reversed them in 92da697

@mohamedamir
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @timcappalli
This indeed makes more sense!

TallTed
TallTed suggested changes May 13, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@TallTed TallTed left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Trivial, for consistency & clarity.

index.html
@@ -676,7 +676,7 @@ <h3>
</p>
<dl>
<dt>
Define a protocol identifier
Define a <dfn data-dfn-for="registry" data-local-lt="identifier">protocol identifier</dfn>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Define a <dfn data-dfn-for="registry" data-local-lt="identifier">protocol identifier</dfn>
Define a <dfn data-dfn-for="registry" data-local-lt="identifier">protocol identifier</dfn>.

index.html
@@ -690,22 +690,22 @@ <h3>
identifier MUST be assigned and be added to the registry.
</dd>
<dt>
Specify a protocol type
Specify a <dfn data-dfn-for="registry" data-local-lt="type">protocol type</dfn>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Specify a <dfn data-dfn-for="registry" data-local-lt="type">protocol type</dfn>
Specify a <dfn data-dfn-for="registry" data-local-lt="type">protocol type</dfn>.

index.html
</dt>
<dd>
The protocol type is either "Presentation" for presentation protocols
used with `navigator.credentials.get` or "Issuance" for issuance
protocols used with `navigator.credentials.create`.
</dd>
<dt>
Describe the protocol
<dfn data-dfn-for="registry" data-local-lt="description">Describe the protocol</dfn>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
<dfn data-dfn-for="registry" data-local-lt="description">Describe the protocol</dfn>
<dfn data-dfn-for="registry" data-local-lt="description">Describe the protocol</dfn>.

index.html
</dt>
<dd>
The description MUST be a brief summary of the protocol's purpose and
use case.
</dd>
<dt>
Provide a link to the specification
Provide a <dfn data-dfn-for="registry" data-local-lt="link">link to the specification</dfn>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Provide a <dfn data-dfn-for="registry" data-local-lt="link">link to the specification</dfn>
Provide a <dfn data-dfn-for="registry" data-local-lt="link">link to the specification</dfn>.

@wseltzer wseltzer changed the title Link to registery inclusion criteria definitions Link to registry inclusion criteria definitions May 14, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@TallTed TallTed TallTed requested changes

At least 1 approving review is required to merge this pull request.

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
agenda+ Add to the weekly agenda
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@mohamedamir @timcappalli @TallTed