Updates to URIs, URLs, and URNs section

w3c-ccg / did-spec

Please see README.md for latest version being developed by W3C DID WG.

https://w3c.github.io/did-core/

Other

124 stars 45 forks source link

Updates to URIs, URLs, and URNs section #159

Closed mwherman2000 closed 5 years ago

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

Fixes #155 Fixes #156

Preview | Diff

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

Fine w/ it being merged, note the editorial nits. Please mention if you plan to fix them or not. Fine w/ merge w/o them being fixed, but reserve the right to clean up the text later on (from an editorial perspective).

Changed the opening sentence to be neutral (instead of negative).
Removed one occurrence of "DIDs" in the concluding paragraph. Prefer to leave it as a sentence (vs. a bulleted list) given the preceding long bulleted list.
In terms.html, added the following sentence with link back to this section...

A DID is a URL, URI, and a URN.

dmitrizagidulin commented 5 years ago

I was just about to add that we really don't need that paragraph? I can't imagine any implementer caring about whether DIDs are URLs or URNs...

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

@dmitrizagidulin There's technical details/differences that matter. For example, https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/97

dmitrizagidulin commented 5 years ago

@mwherman2000

There's technical details/differences that matter.

I'm not seeing it.. Issue #97 has nothing to do with whether DIDs are URLs or URNs, it has to do with JSON-LD parsing and serialization mechanics.

But anyways, hopefully the issue has been settled? That DIDs are emphatically not URNs, they do not start with urn:, and do not match the URN RFC?

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

@mwherman2000

There's technical details/differences that matter.

I'm not seeing it.. Issue #97 has nothing to do with whether DIDs are URLs or URNs, it has to do with JSON-LD parsing and serialization mechanics.

But anyways, hopefully the issue has been settled? That DIDs are emphatically not URNs, they do not start with urn:, and do not match the URN RFC?

DIDs might not even be URIs as the current draft DID spec is trying to describe them ... see https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/pull/159#discussion_r251186233 ...unless we refactor the draft DID spec into a "identifier" spec separate from the "acesss/interaction" protocol spec ...in the same document or in separate spec documents. See https://github.com/w3c-ccg/did-spec/issues/121

mwherman2000 commented 5 years ago

The URL spec (referenced in the draft DID spec) is an interesting general pattern to consider: https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#urls

My favorite quote? :-)

A URL can be seen as the in-memory representation. (vs. what is a URL string)

BigBlueHat commented 5 years ago

I'd avoid the WHATWG URL spec. It's intended for browser/JavaScript parsing of values in src and href's. It's not a general foundation for identification like RFC 3986 (and related RFCs). I'd avoid it, unless you're building an HTML parser or JS runtime.

rhiaro commented 5 years ago

Spec restructuring and terminology clarification is progressing, and I think the various discussions in this thread are resolved enough to close this PR now.