CIP-0024 | Adjust preamble and structure w.r.t CIP-0001

[rphair]

Fixes #534.
Completes CIP title update begun in #536.

[rphair]

#538 (comment) and #538 (comment) suggest we are decoupling this CIP from Daedalus, so:

@KtorZ @Ryun1 - #536 puts Daedalus in the CIP Table title, and this PR puts Daedalus into the CIP document title... which reflects the way the CIP is written. If we agree that this CIP is in fact intended to apply to other wallets besides Daedalus then I'll reverse those changes here.

[KtorZ]

I think the CIP is broader than just Daedalus. While it starts from an observation in the Daedalus' ranking, it was also written at a time were there were not as many wallets as today on Cardano.

Having the CIP framed more as an alternative ranking solution would increase its chance of being adopted as I see very little chance for it being implemented by the Daedalus / cardano-wallet team after all these years.

[Ryun1]

I see that this proposal could be generalized to other wallets, but also the author focuses solely on Daedalus.

I think we can either reframe this to fit in the more general wallets category OR we set to status of inactive as Deadalus is not an enlisted CIP category.

[KtorZ]

To be fair, the proposal doesn't focus on Daedalus, but it focuses on the official Shelley specification from which Daedalus' ranking is implemented. What it proposes, is an alternative to that ranking strategy outlines in the Shelley specs.

[Ryun1]

but it focuses on the official Shelley specification

ahh youre right, I had not read it carefully enough, disregard my last comment.

[rphair]

good @KtorZ @Ryun1, we're in agreement then ... I'll commit a further change that removes the Daedalus term again from both titles.

[rphair]

OK @Ryun1 that's been done a couple days ago... can we have another look? 🤠 (also at #537 please)

[Ryun1]

Looks good to me, great work @rphair 🚀