Re: Adopting the Hashlink spec as a work item?

On 1/4/19 1:05 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
> it seems to me personally that this would be reflected in a 
> best-practices document, as it’s not clear what would actually need 
> to change normatively in the rec-track specs to take advantage of 
> this.

Correct, and that is by design... no normative changes needed to
JSON-LD. I think explaining the functionality in a best practices
document is the right way to go.

> (In any case, it can be implemented via a custom document loader 
> before HTTP-like libraries provide broad support).

Correct, and this is where the expected changes need to happen in either
Legacy Hashlink URL (e.g. <url>?hl=XYZ) or Hashlink URL mode (e.g.
hl:<hash>:<metadata>).

> Is there a test suite for these drafts so that I might try my own 
> implementation and verify that it’s working properly?

There are two test vectors at the end of the document (which is not enough):

https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/hashlink/#appendix-c

I've got some thoughts on how we could build a test suite around this
(basically an HTTP server with symbolic links that serves up
valid/invalid content and a driver that invokes a resolver that returns
good/bad for any given hashlink URL), but have a deep backlog on the
Verifiable Credentials test suite/spec and Decentralized Identifier test
suite/spec, so I won't be able to get to that any time soon.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches

Received on Sunday, 6 January 2019 18:23:22 UTC