- From: Filip Kolarik <filip26@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2026 13:33:18 +0200
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Cc: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CADRK2_Ntw+6C+hXLpvVH2q+Xt+KpB_xQePmB2GNWeD8VN-gFPw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi, Just FYI: the DID 1.1-RC1 context adds Multikey and JsonWebKey, which makes the CID 1.0 and DID 1.1 contexts equivalent. https://www.w3.org/ns/did-vocab/v1.1rc1.jsonld Best, Filip On Sun, Jul 26, 2026 at 9:46 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote: > > > čt 9. 7. 2026 v 12:28 odesílatel Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> > napsal: > >> >> >> čt 2. 7. 2026 v 16:39 odesílatel Filip Kolarik <filip26@gmail.com> >> napsal: >> >>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 3:08 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> .... >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Manu. So, the thing is we needed a predicate for MultiKey and so >>>> on, and that's not in did v1 but it is in cid. I think Multikey is going to >>>> be in did v 1.1 but is not published yet. >>>> >>>> Is that correct? >>>> >>> >>> Hi Melvin, >>> Multikey has its own context: https://w3id.org/security/multikey/v1 >>> along with the CID context; see here: >>> https://www.w3.org/2025/credentials/vcdi/vocab/v2/vocabulary.html#Multikey >>> >>> Congratulations on this milestone! >>> >> >> Thanks Will, Manu, Filip. This was very useful. >> >> Following up on the @context issue, we could fix this in v0.1.1 by >> restoring the DID context as the first entry, while keeping the CID context >> alongside it: >> >> "@context": [ >> "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1", >> "https://www.w3.org/ns/cid/v1", >> "https://w3id.org/nostr/context" >> ] >> >> The rationale is that did/v1 first satisfies the DID Core 1.0 >> requirement, while cid/v1 continues to provide Multikey / >> publicKeyMultibase. In our local jsonld.js checks, this appears to preserve >> the current semantics. >> >> One question for Manu / the DID WG: during the DID 1.0 to 1.1 transition, >> is the recommended practice for DID methods to stay on did/v1 until the DID >> 1.1 context is final and dereferenceable, rather than targeting v1.1rc1 >> directly? >> >> Will, yes, we would be glad to discuss did:nostr on a CCG call. Let us >> get v0.1.1 fixed first, then we can coordinate a date. >> > > Unless there are objections, I propose using the following @context order > in version 0.1.1, then publishing: > > "@context": [ > "https://www.w3.org/ns/did/v1", > "https://www.w3.org/ns/cid/v1", > "https://w3id.org/nostr/context" > ] > > Comments welcome. > > >> >> Thanks, >> Melvin >> >> >>> >>> Best regards >>> Filip >>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/filipkolarik/ >>> >>>
Received on Sunday, 26 July 2026 11:33:35 UTC