From 5f2c57fe6128f5ce202489bde73ce6c33ed25fff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:59:55 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] Fix grammar in validity period guidance.

Co-authored-by: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>
---
 index.html | 29 +++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

diff --git a/index.html b/index.html
index b315e4c..3a2371f 100644
--- a/index.html
+++ b/index.html
@@ -1815,12 +1815,13 @@ <h3>Bitstring Encoding</h3>
       <h3>Validity Periods</h3>
 
       <p>
-The <a data-cite="?VC-DATA-MODEL-2.0#validity-period">validity period</a> of a
-status list is dependent on a variety of factors including:
+The <a data-cite="?VC-DATA-MODEL-2.0#validity-period">validity period</a> that
+an issuer might choose to express in a status list is dependent on a variety of
+factors including:
       </p>
       <ul>
         <li>
-How often do status values change? In real-time? Daily? Weekly? Monthly?
+How often do status values change? In real-time? Daily? Weekly? Monthly? Other?
         </li>
         <li>
 Is there a regulatory requirement that compels an [=issuer=] to notify a
@@ -1831,23 +1832,23 @@ <h3>Validity Periods</h3>
 damage by not notifying a [=verifier=] of a status change?
         </li>
         <li>
-Is there an expectation by a [=verifier=] to not accept a
-[=verifiable credential=] with a status list that does not expire for an
-excessive period of time?
+Is there any expectation that a [=verifier=] will not accept a
+[=verifiable credential=] with a status list that does not expire for a
+period of time it deems excessive?
         </li>
         <li>
-Is there an excessive network bandwidth or computing burden placed upon an
-[=issuer=] or a [=verifier=] if a validity period is too short for a
-status list?
+Will a short validity period for a status list cause a significant network
+bandwidth or computing burden for an [=issuer=] or a [=verifier=]? Might
+this burden be mitigated by a longer validity period?
         </li>
       </ul>
 
       <p>
-Since these factors vary based on ecosystem and credential type, there is no
-minimum or maximum validity period that is suggested for a status list.
-[=Issuers=] will need to take various considerations into account that are
-specific to their [=verifiable credential=] types and pick validity periods that
-will strike the right balance in their ecosystem.
+Since these factors vary with the ecosystem and credential type, there is no
+minimum or maximum validity period that is suggested for all status lists.
+[=Issuers=] will need to consider various factors that are specific to their
+[=verifiable credential=] types and choose validity periods that will strike
+the right balance in their ecosystem.
       </p>
     </section>