Sarven Capadisli

Specifications defining roles that serve a WebID Profile Document that do not conform to the Solid server should specify the ways that the consumer of the WebID Profile Document can...

Tim, with respect to this issue, I'm saying that any specification that requires or anticipates dereferencing WebIDs - which may resolve to a non-Solid server - can consider recommending the...

Changed the status to Waiting for Commenter again and asking @RubenVerborgh whether the answers are satisfactory and asking if @timbl is satisfied or has objections to close this particular issue.

I feel we are now awfully close to repeating ourselves. For example, the last paragraph in https://github.com/solid/specification/issues/376#issuecomment-1022088555 as to what the current expectations are and whether people want something stricter,...

>the Solid protocol (and other Solid specs) contains too much useless text about WebIDs. Most of it is repetition or paraphrasing of the WebID spec >Since those paraphrases can contain...

>The point remains: there is text that would not matter if left out, and if the instability of a draft is the issue, then the best way would be a...

What's the essential difference between `did:web:` and `http:` ? What's possible with `did:web:` that's not possible with `http:`?

`did:web:` isn't yet a registered method but I'm sure that can change easily. A DID document is represented in JSON-LD and its context uses an HTTP URI ( eg https://w3id.org/did/v1...

`did:web` may be in conflict with the following criteria from the DID spec ( https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/WD-did-core-20191209/#did-method-schemes ): >The `method-specific-id` value MUST be able to be generated without the use of a...

One update is that there is an early draft for the `did:solid` method: https://solid.github.io/did-method-solid/ (Repo: https://github.com/solid/did-method-solid ). That was published before `did:web` had some (significant?) revisions, so we need to...