jonnycrunch

I can live with dweb:/ipld/ if that is on track for ietf. I'd prefer `ipld:` As far as authority, since there isn't one, it doesn't require the two slashes`//`, just...

so, just to give my thoughts on this subject. In my use-case for the [IPID DID spec](https://did-ipid.github.io/ipid-did-method/) that uses IPLD, it would be very nice to support tag 98 (COSE...

@mikeal thanks! let me know.

application/json would be preferred.

@dmitrizagidulin > Can I ask - why preferred? as we discussed in Barcelona the `application/vc+json` would imply JSON-LD as the current vc-data-model clearly states `MUST` use an `@context` attribute and...

more thoughts on the IPLD MIME types: https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs/issues/36 in essence, JSON-LD is completely compatible on top of IPLD, but IPLD is not completely backwards compatible with JSON-LD. What is missing...

also, I can image we will support a `application/vc+ipld+json` format that serializes the cbor to deterministic JSON string representation and thus my point that `application/vc` which implies JSON-LD still holds...

@RichardLitt : yes, I do. I have been exploring JSON-LD for self-sovereign digital identity solutions, but lately have been contemplating IPLD as the '@context' link would need to be a...

@RichardLitt @flyingzumwalt I have an update use case that I worked on for the RebootingWebofTrust meeting last week in Boston. I implemented the DID ( Decentralized Identifiers) on top of...

@diasdavid good for me.