Catchup on final changes status:
- Implementors draft, to get multiple implementations to verify the steps
- Quality check on the spec
- Should be able to show interop between implementations
- This allows us to enter 'final' public review
- This should be socialized that more implementations are needed as a next step that we would like to help support
The "decentralized diagrams/images directory" and the totally automated approach of metadata gathering:
- Input: We've defined a definition of a diagram: an image that resides on one of the weboftrust or trustoverip repos. We've defined a reference to a diagram: a URL to a source that resides on one of weboftrust or trustoverip user accounts. We reckoned that a diagram with a reference on the github page or elsewhere of its own repo is a strong commitment to its status (reputation of the diagram, if you will).We reckoned that a reference to diagram on any other github page of the group of repos that together form the "decentralized diagrams/images directory" is also a strong statement to its reputation. We grab the text around all references to a certain diagram to offer context about how it's used.
- Question to be discussed: are we going the right direction with 1. ? Are there any other automatically derivable reputational scores?
- Request for input: what are the repos that belong to the group and could you point us (path!) to valuable image sources under each of these repos?
- The (intensity of the) orange columns ( row 1+2) of this prototype metadata of diagrams and images to be processed says how likely it'll be that we can automatically derive the data from the repos (example: column 'commit hash') versus the need to manually input afterwards (example: column 'level') (edited)
- Separating the admin control from did:web, to provide separate signing control is a big step.
- Wording this in a way that helps those outside our community to understand/appreciate that step is extremely valuable.
- What needs to be completed to enter the public review process?
