Improve text for CCF Specification 1.0.0 #103
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Improve grammar for readability.
Mention CCF is "a binary data format" in the first sentence and rephrase some sentences.
Shorten "CCF-based formats and protocols" to "CCF-based protocols" and clarify some text.
Fix some typos introduced in last commit.
Clarify the last sentence in this paragraph of "Scope": > This document does not specify how to encode version numbers of CCF itself or CCF-based protocols. CCF-based protocols can specify an encoding that uses CalVer, SemVer, sequence-based versioning, any other versioning, or no versioning. Some CCF-based protocols may want to use CBOR Sequences ([RFC 8742](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8742.html)) to provide a version number in the first CBOR data item, followed by CBOR data item(s) representing CCF message(s).
Mostly formatting changes to prepare for separate changes to text.
Update "Objectives" section to say CCF supports: - Cadence external values: CCF supports all Cadence built-in types and user-defined types (e.g., composite types). For extensibility, CCF reserves multiple ranges of CBOR tag numbers (unassigned by IANA) for future Cadence built-in data types. While at it, also improve some other text (grammar).
Old text: - `field-name` MUST be unique in `composite-type`. New text: - `field-name` MUST be unique in `composite-type.fields`.
Remove redundant bullet point about converting between CCF and JSON.
Provide general guidance and mention security rather than requiring reader to know why encoding transaction arguments have considerations requiring explicitly sorted fields. Old text: - A CCF-based protocol for encoding transaction arguments might want to specify that encoders MUST produce deterministic encodings of the values. New text: - A CCF-based protocol that prioritizes security above performance (or requires explicitly sorted fields) might want to specify that encoders MUST produce deterministic encodings of the values.
Shortened and clarified some text. For example: Old text: CCF decoders can handle invalid CCF messages as required by each CCF-based protocol. New text: Each CCF-based protocol MUST specify how to handle invalid CCF messages.
fxamacker
changed the title
fxamacker
added a commit
to onflow/ccf
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 31, 2025
Changes were done at github.com/fxamacker/ccf_draft to reduce noise here during the weekend. For details (individual commits), see: - fxamacker/ccf_draft#103 - fxamacker/ccf_draft#104 NOTE: There were no changes to CDDL.
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.
Improve text for readability:
These changes do not affect the current CCF codec implementation.
Improvements to "CCF Examples" section will be done in a separate PR (when time allows).