search

WebOfTrustInfo / rwot8-barcelona

RWOT8 in Barcelona, Spain (March 2019)
130 stars 101 forks source link

Reset the DID ABNF - removed "$" and "!" #164

Closed mwherman2000 closed 5 years ago

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

Removed "$" and "!" from grammar. Reset "$" back to ";" pending resolution of https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona/issues/163

peacekeeper commented 5 years ago

@mwherman2000 Independent of the question whether the changes at RWoT#8 in Barcelona reflect community consensus, your PR here proposes that both did-fragment-ref and did-service-ref start with a ; character. Is this what you meant to propose?

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

Good catch @peacekeeper - fixed

dmitrizagidulin commented 5 years ago

@mwherman2000 - So, the context for the proposed change from ; to $ is twofold:

  1. $ is more readable/visible than ; (which is only a few pixels away from :, which is used throughout the did).
  2. $ looks like S for "service".

In any case, I don't think this repo is the place to argue this. That paper is just that - a Rebooting paper. There is going to be a PR to the DID spec with the ABNF from this paper, with explanations. So, that PR would be the place for debate.

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

As I stated here https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona/issues/163 .,,,

"$" is particularly problematic because "$" is already in common usage in many accepted international specifications for URLs:

OASIS/ISO OData System Query Options: http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata/v4.01/cs01/part2-url-conventions/odata-v4.01-cs01-part2-url-conventions.html#_Toc505773217

In addition, these changes came from a closeted discussion behind a one-off, pay-to-play event from which no notes, attendee list, or recording are available - no record of the discussion, the participants, the justification for the changes - it doesn't represent the opinion of the broader communities that meet weekly basis every Tuesday and every second Thursday. It was a total surprise to those of us who met yesterday on the Thursday DID Resolution concall.

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

@dmitrizagidulin These following aren't adequate justifications ...they're fluff ...especially in light of https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona/issues/163:

$ is more readable/visible than ; (which is only a few pixels away from :, which is used throughout the did).

This is irrelevant because the DID syntax is a syntax/procotol for developers to implement in software. It's not a human readable language.

$ looks like S for "service".

Fluff.

There is going to be a PR to the DID spec with the ABNF from this paper, with explanations.

This sounds like what was decided in Barcelona is being jammed down our throats (see https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona/pull/164#issuecomment-470940682). Why are you not:

  1. posting the proposed changes as a did-spec issue
  2. then initiating an open discussion
  3. build community consensus
  4. then, possibly, proceed to a PR?

CC: @talltree @peacekeeper

andrewhughes3000 commented 5 years ago

Hi people - I think this discussion thread might be misplaced. This repo is not related to the W3C CCG work other than perhaps having a few common participants. Andrew

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:24 AM Michael Herman (Toronto) < notifications@github.com> wrote:

@dmitrizagidulin https://github.com/dmitrizagidulin These following aren't adequate justifications ...they're fluff ...especially in light of

163 https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona/issues/163:

$ is more readable/visible than ; (which is only a few pixels away from :, which is used throughout the did).

This is irrelevant because the DID syntax is a syntax/procotol for developers to implement in software. It's not a human readable language.

$ looks like S for "service".

Fluff.

There is going to be a PR to the DID spec with the ABNF from this paper, with explanations.

This sounds like what was decided in Barcelona is being jammed down our throats (see #164 (comment) https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona/pull/164#issuecomment-470940682). Why are you not:

  • posting it as a did-spec issue
  • then initiating an open discussion
  • build community consensus
  • then, possibly, proceed to a PR?

CC: @talltree https://github.com/talltree @peacekeeper https://github.com/peacekeeper

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rwot8-barcelona/pull/164#issuecomment-470945274, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASYM_F5frkLt9NFZFyMU8JPwdepjmcZWks5vUnKOgaJpZM4bkilf .

-- Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP In Turn Information Management Consulting o +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8 AndrewHughes3000@gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

I agree. It raises further questions why this document was placed in this repository.

peacekeeper commented 5 years ago

@shannona I don't think it was the intention of the authors for this to be merged; you should probably revert the merge while the discussion is ongoing.

shannona commented 5 years ago

Thanks; reverted.