WICG
Add terminology section, merge in Model
Closes #352
- Adds a new Terminology section covering #352
- Merges in the existing Model section
@marcoscaceres
so no need to redefine them if we are just linking to them (saves a click).
The goal is not to redefine, it's to reference. It's important to call out important terms that are related to the spec for those who consume the terminology section directly. If bikeshed is causing a double link, let's find a way to remove the internal/local spec link to the term itself. I'm sure there's a way to do that. I will check.
Would be good to split this into multiple PRs. A lot of these are controversial so we can make quicker progress on smaller PRs on anything that is not.
They're editorial so let's just tackle them together and then make one big update to the spec with replacements. Constantly changing terminology is not helpful to consumers of the spec.
Right, but we should only define things we use in the soec. Nothing here is used in the spec so, as ReSpec is probably saying, ⚠️“probably a spec bug”.
Similar “Issuer” and other things are already owned by VC 2, it doesn’t make sense to have them here.
ReSpec and bike shed both support creating an Index, which produces a set of columns that say which spec defines what. We can add that if you’d like, and that conveys the same thing without the local redefinitions.
Discussed during 25 November 2025 call. Will bring back to the Series A call to make sure we're ready to break this into one PR per term being defined.
Discussed briefly https://github.com/w3c-fedid/meetings/blob/main/2025/2025-12-02-DCAPI-A-notes.md#add-terminology-section-merge-in-model-387. @timcappalli holds the pen
This turned in to a hot mess. Closing this PR and will open a few others that address some open pieces.