- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2026 08:31:33 -0400
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: Will Abramson <will@legreq.com>, W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 1, 2026 at 8:40 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > We started out with the did context, then moved to the cid context, as I thought that is what we were supposed to do. This copy slipped through the refactor. I'd suggest sticking with the DID context for nostr. CIDs were really only ever intended to be for HTTPS-based URLs. > So now I am wondering what is the best practice? For non-HTTPS-based solutions, use the DID context... though I haven't read the spec yet so there might be some nuance in there that I'm missing. > Should we use the did context or the did context, or do we need 2 specs? Don't create two specs, use the DID context. Also, pay particular attention to this section of the CID spec (which is inherited by the DID spec): https://www.w3.org/TR/cid-1.0/#context-injection Namely, if you don't have an `@context` property, implementers can inject one. That might address your concern, Will? Congrats on the publication, Melvin, always good to see diversity in the DID Methods ecosystem that builds upon a thriving community such as nostr. -- manu -- Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2026 12:32:14 UTC