Incorporate Aaron Parecki's review suggestions

[selfissued]

Fixes #17

[aaronpk]

Thanks. I reviewed the changes and I don't see these two of my earlier comments addressed in this:

• There is still a mention of the "none" algorithm being acceptable over TLS
• The "Explicit Typing" section still starts with the vague "Sometimes, one kind of JWT can be confused for another"

[selfissued]

Thanks, Aaron.

There is still a mention of the "none" algorithm being acceptable over TLS

I'll look at the "none" text and update the PR. Sorry I missed that one!

The "Explicit Typing" section still starts with the vague "Sometimes, one kind of JWT can be confused for another"

The new paragraph after this one, giving an example of possible confusion, was intended to do what you asked in your review, which was:

This is kind of vague and would benefit from more explicit examples.

So I'd either ask that you check off the last request as completed or provide more input as to particular additional text changes you'd like.

Thanks again!

[selfissued]

@aaronpk, I deleted the text saying that the use of "alg":"none" can be acceptable when transmitting JWTs over TLS. Please re-review.