Merge pull request #251 from yarikoptic/minor-bfs

Minor tune ups to RFC-2 changes

rfc/2/index.md

@@ -122,8 +122,8 @@ However, in the future they might deprecate support for version 2 or deprioritiz
 Additionally, there are OME-Zarr implementations that have their own integrated Zarr stack.
 With this hard cut, implementations that only support OME-Zarr versions ≥ 0.5 will not need to implement Zarr version 2 as well.
 
-From a OME-Zarr user perspective, the hard cut also makes things simpler: < 0.5 => Zarr version 2 and ≥ 0.5 => Zarr version 3.
-If users wish to upgrade their data from one OME-Zarr version to another, it migration tools will be available ([prototype here](https://github.com/scalableminds/zarrita/blob/8155761/zarrita/array_v2.py#L452-L559)).
+From an OME-Zarr user perspective, the hard cut also makes things simpler: < 0.5 => Zarr version 2 and ≥ 0.5 => Zarr version 3.
+If users wish to upgrade their data from one OME-Zarr version to another, migration tools will be available ([prototype here](https://github.com/scalableminds/zarrita/blob/8155761/zarrita/array_v2.py#L452-L559)).
 Migration is a fairly computationally cheap operation, because only json files are touched.
 
 Due to the existence of large quantities of images in OME-Zarr 0.4, it is RECOMMENDED that implementations continue to support OME-Zarr 0.4 with the underlying Zarr v2.
@@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ While the metadata of Zarr v3 is not backwards compatible, the chunk data is lar
 Previous versions of this proposal contained changes to referencing `labels` in the OME-Zarr metadata.
 This has been delayed to future RFCs.
 
-Previous versions have used a versioned namespace, e.g. `https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/0.5`, in the Zarr attributes instead of a simple `ome` namespace with dedicated `version` attribute.
+Previous versions of this proposal have used a versioned namespace, e.g. `https://ngff.openmicroscopy.org/0.5`, in the Zarr attributes instead of a simple `ome` namespace with dedicated `version` attribute.
 This has been abandoned because it makes discovery of versions more difficult.
 Additionally, handling of multiple versions may be ill-defined.