Ted Thibodeau Jr

> there could be a single exception: "the server MUST deliver unless the activity is considered undeliverable according to server policy... I like that. I'd like it better if there...

I believe this is as simple as a PR against https://github.com/w3c/did-spec-registries/blob/main/CODEOWNERS

Ah. I don't think there's an automated path to that restriction. I know reviews can be automatically requested from all CODEOWNERS (this might require a switch to be flipped, as...

Yeah, that requires a *number* of approving reviews by people with commit authority on the branch (which I believe is a larger group than CODEOWNERS). It doesn't let you specify...

Yeah, "someday" dynamically sorting (and sizing cursor windows over) large tables will be built into Respec. Until then, we're stuck with the horror that is a giant static table, because...

Well, it shouldn't become "as an `items` in". So perhaps "This Activity is added by the receiver to the `items` in the [inbox](https://www.w3.org/TR/activitypub/#inbox) OrderedCollection".

I certainly support consistency. As a word, I like "informative" better than "non-normative". However, for purposes of W3C documents — i.e., for use in contrast with "normative" — I think...

> This is an editorial concern and should be left to the editor's discretion. "Editor's discretion" can lead to both "informative" and "non-normative" being used in the same document, both...

> I think that saying that this one instance of the word "informative" as the title of an appendix "leads to confusion" is a strong overstatement Yes, I think *this*...

note: lines beginning `@prefix` are also valid; they are just required to end with `.`, while lines beginning `PREFIX` (case-insensitive!) must *not* end with `.`.