W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2019

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

From: David Chadwick <D.W.Chadwick@kent.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:39:39 +0000
To: public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <3226444f-c7c9-e5a8-582d-a90ea36acf1e@kent.ac.uk>
Fortunately it does effect those who do not use linked data proofs (such 
as JWT/JWS)

On 26/11/2019 17:08, Manu Sporny wrote:
> 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
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2019 17:39:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:19:03 UTC