Documentation feedback

[Vishwas1]

1. We are not asking for any ver method id in signClientSpec() method, whereas in sign() we are asking ver method id, why? is it hardcoded like the fist property? Why to ask for address: string; property, instead we should ask for ver_method_id and then fetch walletaddress out of blockchainaccountid right?

2. Web3 latest version does not work; it works with "web3": "^1.6.0"

3. Method definition for sign() and signClientSpec() return types are differnt. For sign() we have Promise<ISignedDIDDocument>; whereas for signedClientSpec() we have Promise<{ didDocument: Did; signature: string }>: There should be consistency.

4. No explanation for ISignedDIDDocument for sign()

5. Use ether.js in frontend and test as well since most devs uses ether.js

6. Take entity API key as a param to the SDK, if developer has passed, offlinesigner, then use offlineSigner as primary wallet otherwise, use API to do all on chain activities. This was, developer a) dont have to worry about understanding offline signer, b) The dont have to worry about HID wallet since it will be abstracted out with APIs. They only focus on
   understanding doc of JS sdk. Entity API key as optional param in Hypersign SDK #95

7. Explain about verifiable Relationship

8. No explanation about clientSpec at all

9. Explanation of retrun type for generate() is not there. Its just written Promise<object>

10. Explanation of retrun type for sign() is not there. Its just written Promise<ISignedDIDDocument>

11. Explanation of retrun type for verify() is not there. Its just written Promise<object>

12. Explanation of retrun type for resolve() is not there. Its just written Promise<object>

13. Explanation of retrun type for createByClientSpec() is not there. Its just written Promise<object>

14. Explanation for IVerificationRelationships is missing

[Vishwas1]

• point 1 is I feel is a bug. so fix it on priority,
• Point 6 we need to implement
• Point 3 is also important