Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

Hi Manu,

if there is so much support for VC API, it should be easy to get it adopted as a formal work item in the VC working group or to spin up a new working group at W3C to work on it. 

Why do you insist on publishing it as a note? As far as I understand W3C processes this would be a non-normative document. A normative document would be much better suited for an API specification and would have much more weight since it needs to go through to a full review and voting process. 

As far as I understand the current work on VC API happens at the W3C CCG, whose charter states 

"Our tasks include drafting and incubating Internet specifications for further standardization ...“

I guess VC API has reached that point.

best regards,
Torsten.   

> Am 20.11.2022 um 04:23 schrieb Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>:
> 
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 6:11 PM Daniel Hardman <daniel.hardman@gmail.com <mailto: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.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/ <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/ <https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/>
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021) 
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/ <https://www.digitalbazaar.com/>
>