Open travisleithead opened 3 years ago
+1 to adding additional guidance on compatibility between the JSON and JSON-LD (and other) representations. The WG has spent a lot of time on this topic, without really coming to a shared understanding that everybody agrees to. Therefore, I believe it would be valuable to revisit this topic after some time (once there is more implementation experience).
-1 to explicitly recommending one representation over another, but +1 to pointing out pros and cons of specific representations.
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-08-31
We further recommend that implementers use the simpler JSON representation, to enhance interoperability and avoid complications and incompatibilities arising from JSON-LD processing.
-1, this was heavily debated during while creating DID Core -- to not pick favorite syntaxes, implementers are welcome to use what they feel is appropriate. +1 to language and tooling that helps implementers ensure that their implementations work correctly across all serializations. The solution here is to build validation tooling for DID Document implementers, not to favor one syntax over another.
The current scope of the draft charter supports making such updates to the DID Implementation Guide. Since this issue is pertinent to that note, I am transferring this issue to that repository.
This is part of the feedback from Microsoft's ballot response to the DID Core spec transition to REC AC review. As it pertains to future work on that spec, @iherman encouraged me to file it here for consideration in the charter process (as applicable). See also w3c/did-core#836, w3c/did-wg-charter#13.
Microsoft recommends additional non-normative guidance on cross-compatibility between the JSON and JSON-LD representations in Section 6. We further recommend that implementers use the simpler JSON representation, to enhance interoperability and avoid complications and incompatibilities arising from JSON-LD processing.