Re: Proof purposes (was Re: Proposed work item: did:key DID Method)

On 11/26/19 11:56 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Yes, we clearly have an issue with naming consistency in the spec and
> will need to go one way or the other (and there are valid arguments
> for going either way).

Oof, and I just realized that we're more or less locked in to
assertioMethod, because we just shipped the Verifiable Credentials REC.

We can always "fix" things with a v1.1 of Verifiable Credentials, but
clearly we need to get this naming stuff locked down so we don't ship
something else that then needs to be updated later.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches

Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2019 17:08:15 UTC