Use correct term JWT Claims Set

[selfissued]

Note that the SD-JWT spec also uses the term JWT Claims Set.

---

Preview | Diff

[decentralgabe]

purely editorial. merging.

[TallTed]

Note that this was acknowledged when I requested that all claims set be changed to claim set, which request was accepted and acted upon.

I know, "JWT Claims Set" is what was used in RFC7519. It's terrible English. Both "Set of JWT Claims" and "JWT Claim Set" have the intended meaning, and would put the singulars and plurals in the right places. RFC7519 did the right thing with "claim names" (it never says "claims names" nor "claims name"). I can't guess why it got "Claims Set" wrong. But it is.

Note that "JWT claims set" is also inconsistent within this JOSE/COSE document with "JSON claim set". I have found other RFCs that include both "claims set" and "claim set".

I can't imagine what rule would declare "claims set" and "claim set" both correct. Sadly, Google has hidden their "result" counts, so I can no longer make any representation of current usage on the web.

I won't lie down in the road on this, but it sets my teeth on edge, so I'm asking that it be changed, throughout.

[selfissued]

In defense of the name "JWT Claims Set", this is a shorthand for "a set of JWT claims". The term "JWT Claim Set" would be syntactically incorrect in the same way that "a set of JWT claim" would be. (They're both missing the required plural.)

[TallTed]

The term "JWT Claim Set" would be syntactically incorrect in the same way that "a set of JWT claim" would be. (They're both missing the required plural.)

This is incorrect analysis.

A "JWT Claim Set" is a "Set of JWT Claims", in the same way that a "rulebook" (or "rule book") is a "book of rules", or a "toolbox" is a "box of tools".

There are dozens if not hundreds of examples like these. I'm sure you can think of several if you take a few minutes.