fix language in 2.1 specification #78
Open
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
Mostly fixing grammatical issues. Added .vscode to .gitignore cause it made it easier for me.
lrosenthol
requested changes
Oct 27, 2024
| @@ -1095,10 +1095,10 @@ <h2 id="_versioning"><a class="anchor" href="#_versioning"></a>5. Versioning</h2 | |||
| <div class="sect2"> | |||
| <h3 id="_compatibility"><a class="anchor" href="#_compatibility"></a>5.1. Compatibility</h3> | |||
| <div class="paragraph"> | |||
| <p>As the Content Credentials specification has evolved, constructs such as box labels, assertions (and their fields), claims and time-stamps have also evolved. New assertions have been added, and some existing assertions and the claim have newer versions with additional fields. In addition, some constructs have been deprecated. In this specification, when a construct is marked as deprecated, that means that a claim generator shall not write that construct (or value), but that a validator should read it.</p> | |||
| <p>As the Content Credentials specification has evolved, constructs such as box labels, assertions (and their fields), claims and time-stamps have also evolved. New assertions have been added, and some existing assertions and claims have newer versions with additional fields. In addition, some constructs have been deprecated. In this specification, when a construct is marked as deprecated, that means that a claim generator shall not write that construct (or value), but that a validator should read it.</p> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is only ever a single claim in any C2PA Manifest.
| @@ -1331,7 +1331,7 @@ <h4 id="_2_1_september_2024"><a class="anchor" href="#_2_1_september_2024"></a>5 | |||
| <div class="sect3"> | |||
| <h4 id="_2_0_january_2024"><a class="anchor" href="#_2_0_january_2024"></a>5.2.2. 2.0 - January 2024</h4> | |||
| <div class="paragraph"> | |||
| <p>This version represents a significant departure from previous versions. It reduces the use of the term "actor", which no longer represents humans and organisations. In addition to validator-configured trust lists, it also introduces a new default trust list, the "C2PA Trust List", which is intended to cover certificates issued to hardware and software. This philosophical change led to the following functional changes in the specification:</p> | |||
| <p>This version represents a significant departure from previous versions. It reduces the use of the term "actor", which no longer represents humans and organizations. In addition to validator-configured trust lists, it also introduces a new default trust list, the "C2PA Trust List", which is intended to cover certificates issued to hardware and software. This philosophical change led to the following functional changes in the specification:</p> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We use Int'l English (which uses s instead of z on many words) for our standard.
| </div> | ||
| <div class="paragraph"> | ||
| <p>If the C2PA Manifest Store was located then the hard binding assertion present in its active manifest shall be used to validate that it is the matching manifest and whether the asset has been modified without manifest updates. If the hard binding does not match, it is unknown if that is because of (a) modification of the asset or (b) the wrong C2PA Manifest Store was located. Accordingly, the validator shall treat this as a non-matching hard binding and reject the manifest with a failure code of <code>assertion.dataHash.mismatch</code> if a data hash assertion is used, <code>assertion.boxesHash.mismatch</code> if a general boxes hash assertion is used, <code>assertion.collectionHash.mismatch</code> if a collection data hash assertion is used, or <code>assertion.bmffHash.mismatch</code> if a BMFF hash assertion is used.</p> | ||
| <p>If the C2PA Manifest Store was located, the hard binding assertion present in its active manifest shall be used to validate that the C2PA Manifest Store is the matching manifest. Additionally, the validator will check whether the asset has been modified without manifest updates. If the hard binding does not match, it is unknown if that is because of (a) modification of the asset or (b) the wrong C2PA Manifest Store was located. Accordingly, the validator shall treat this as a non-matching hard binding and reject the manifest with a failure code of <code>assertion.dataHash.mismatch</code> if a data hash assertion is used, <code>assertion.boxesHash.mismatch</code> if a general boxes hash assertion is used, <code>assertion.collectionHash.mismatch</code> if a collection data hash assertion is used, or <code>assertion.bmffHash.mismatch</code> if a BMFF hash assertion is used.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This proposed change is not technically correct.
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.
Mostly fixing grammatical issues. Added .vscode to .gitignore cause it made it easier for me.