Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 6:11 PM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Publishing such a note is thus a political move by its proponents.

We are documenting what is happening in the marketplace. We currently have
17 implementations of the VC API specification, at varying levels of
interoperability, per the last JFF plugfest.

That is many more implementations that many W3C Recommendations and IETF
RFCs achieve as official global standards.

This is the current reality and it is best if we document what's going on
here, especially because we contemplated just that in the chartering of the
VCWG:

[image: image.png]

Variations of the VC API have existed since early 2020 and the VC API Work
Item group at CCG has existed for well over a year with weekly scribed
meetings and regular participants that are also implementing:

https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/ (search for "vcapi")

> The fact is that, although such a document is non-normative, it gets
bundled with normative items in the minds of many, and the normative
distinction is unlikely to be emphasized by VC-API proponents in their
narratives.

The market mistaking the document as a normative W3C specification seems
unlikely given this thread. Even if the proponents don't highlight that
this is currently a non-normative document, I expect the detractors (all of
whom are not implementers of the specification) will ensure that no one
mistakes the document for an "official W3C Recommendation". I can't imagine
customers looking kindly on any vendor that misrepresents the state of the
open standards that they conform to and their current status in the
standardization pipeline.

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
https://www.digitalbazaar.com/