Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add "content-type" and "content-id" DID URL matrix parameters. #61

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
from

Conversation

@peacekeeper
Copy link
Contributor

peacekeeper commented Oct 5, 2019

Re-creating PR from CCG repo: w3c-ccg/did-spec#195. Please consider earlier discussions there.


Preview | Diff

@peacekeeper

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

peacekeeper commented Oct 5, 2019

This adds two concrete DID URL matrix parameters.

Description: At Rebooting-the-Web-of-Trust 8 in Barcelona, a use case was described by @talltree and @kenebert to use DID URL syntax for referencing objects in a DID target system that are not DID Documents. See https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona/blob/master/topics-and-advance-readings/DID-Content-References.md.

Example: did:example:1234;content-type=schema;content-id=z9y8x7w6

@dlongley

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

dlongley commented Oct 5, 2019

to use DID URL syntax for referencing objects in a DID target system that are not DID Documents.

It seems like a DID URL is the wrong tool for that -- or that those things should actually be given their own DIDs so they can be referenced directly. My understanding is that a minimal DID Document could just have an id (that is a DID) -- which should allow for just about anything to be expressed.

@msporny

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

msporny commented Oct 10, 2019

My understanding is that a minimal DID Document could just have an id (that is a DID) -- which should allow for just about anything to be expressed.

Right, why doesn't this solve the problem that these two matrix parameters are attempting to solve? This also raises the question, can DID Documents have alternate content-types, and if so, should that be retrieved via an HTTP API, or are we going to add the concept of content-types to DID Registries (the latter being a really scary expansion in scope).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.