Add WritersLogic text soft-binding algorithms (zwc-watermark.2, text-structure.1, text-minhash.1)

[dcondrey]

Adds three text soft-binding algorithms maintained by WritersLogic and updates the informationalUrl of an existing entry (id 29).

com.writerslogic.zwc-watermark.2 (watermark) revises id 29: drops U+FEFF for U+2060 and adds Reed-Solomon erasure coding so extraction survives partial loss of the zero-width characters. com.writerslogic.text-structure.1 (fingerprint) is a deterministic, model-free 256-bit hash of a document's structural skeleton (sentence-length sequence, paragraph shape, punctuation profile, function-word skeleton) that survives synonym-level paraphrase. com.writerslogic.text-minhash.1 (fingerprint) is a 128-permutation MinHash with 32x4 LSH banding for excerpt and quotation matching, interoperable with ISO 24138 ISCC Text-Code.

Also updates com.writerslogic.zwc-watermark.1 (id 29) informationalUrl from https://writersproof.com/cpop/zwc-watermark to https://docs.writerslogic.com/soft-binding/zwc-watermark so all WritersLogic algorithm spec pages share one base.

All entries conform to the schema, include the mandatory fields, and their informationalUrls resolve. Submitted by the algorithms' maintainer (david@writerslogic.com).

[domguinard]

@dcondrey just confirming that for com.writerslogic.zwc-watermark you want a new entry rather than revising the previous entry?

[domguinard]

Approved during the WM TF meeting.

[dcondrey]

@domguinard Yes, intentional — a new entry (ID 42, .2), not a revision of ID 29 (.1).

The .1/.2 suffix is part of the algorithm identifier, so these are distinct on-the-wire schemes: .2 drops U+FEFF from the symbol alphabet and adds a Reed-Solomon erasure code, so a .2 extractor cannot read .1-encoded content and vice versa. ID 29 (.1) needs to stay registered so existing .1 bindings keep resolving; .2 functionally supersedes it for new content. The "Revision of …v1" wording in the description was meant to describe that relationship, not to request an in-place edit — happy to reword it to "Successor to" in a follow-up if that reads more clearly for the registry.

Thanks for taking it through the WM TF.