w3c
Inconsistent use of resolution?
The use of "resolution" here seems inconsistent with other uses. In particular, I don't think it's "the process of determining an access mechanism and the appropriate parameters necessary to dereference a URI" from https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#section-1.2.2, and it's not "the process of resolving a URI reference within a context that allows relative references so that the result is a string matching the <URI> syntax rule" from https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986.html#section-5 (which is also used in https://www.w3.org/TR/did-1.1/#relative-did-urls). Is it the right term? Perhaps you're just defining how to "dereference" both DIDs and DID URLs?
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/1157
We should do a full review of the spec to check we are being consistent with our use of dereference and resolve throughout.
This was discussed during the #did meeting on 30 October 2025.
View the transcript
w3c/did-resolution#226
Wip: Should we be using resolution at all? That's what he is questioning.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note it's the first thing, isn't it?
markus_sabadello: We've always been using resolution. The DID can also be dereferenced. Consistent with RFC3986 in my mind. This does fit with how we are using it. I wouldn't change anything.
URI "resolution" is the process of determining an access mechanism and the appropriate parameters necessary to dereference a URI; this resolution may require several
iterations. To use that access mechanism to perform an action on the
URI's resource is to "dereference" the URI.
manu: Agree with Markus. Looking at RFC3986 -- pasting...
… what we are doing is textbook definition. Perhaps he is worried about a sentence and how we are using it. Perhaps he is saying it's "dereferencing" vs. "resolution".
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note we need to do a complete review
ottomorac: Perhaps we need to ask more about what he is asking -- perhaps Manu or Markus put in a comment and tag Jeffrey.
<Wip> https://
Wip: The core question is are we dereferencing a DID?
manu: We should do a review of the spec to make sure we are consistent. I can't do that, too much on plate.
ottomorac: We're at time. To be continued.
This was discussed during the #did meeting on 11 November 2025.
View the transcript
w3c/did-resolution#226
JoeAndrieu: can we tie that to the other issue that I'm doing...
wip: yes
wip: but isn't about issue we haven't created yet
JoeAndrieu: yes.
wip: one more...