Skip to content
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.

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

Move Use Cases Appendix before Acknowledgements and Notices #189

Closed
selfissued opened this issue Dec 30, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #347
Closed

Move Use Cases Appendix before Acknowledgements and Notices #189

selfissued opened this issue Dec 30, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #347

Comments

@selfissued
Copy link
Member

Since we're moving the content-full Appendix E up in #171 it occurs to me that we should move the other content-full Appendix D (Use Cases) ahead of the Acknowledgements and Notices.

I think we should do this immediately after #171 is merged, and do so in a PR that does nothing but this. When we move it, we should make no changes to the text. Hopefully we can gather approvals to do this in advance.

@selfissued
Copy link
Member Author

Of course, it would be helpful if we were to merge #190 and #174 before moving the Use Cases, since they make changes to it.

@Sakurann
Copy link
Collaborator

I am not sure I agree with the proposed change. We are not moving appendix E because it is contentful but because it is what we want to read the readers first. After that I would prefer them to read acknowledgements and notices section as those are quite important. We moved use cases to the appendix because this space evolved so much that people reading the spec already have use cases in mind.

@Sakurann
Copy link
Collaborator

there does not seem to be clear rule. in IETF, notices are in the beginning, in OIDC, they are in the appendix. acknowledgements do seem to be the last. happy to review the PR, if someone does it.

Sakurann pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jun 14, 2024
…347)

editorial. agreed in the WG. 4 approvals. merging already because this could lead to merge conflicts.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants