Re: Bluesky spins out an entity for did:plc

What would the theoretical syntax for `did:activitypub` be Melvin?

I've been playing with `did:web` to reasonable success, e.g., `did:web:example.princess.works` works in 
my little side project experimenting with AT Proto style OAuth:
https://github.com/ThisIsMissEm/activitypds/

(assuming there's a user `example` on the server and `princess.works` is the handle domain)

For a `did:activitypub` the question is what would come after that? The URI to the actor document? A webfinger address?

Would it perhaps be: 
- `did:activitypub:hachyderm.io/users/thisismissem`
- `did:activitypub:hachyderm.io?username=thisismissem`

I'm not sure those are much simpler than `did:web`, and you're just shifting the implementation code from 
the server to the client by going the custom did method here.

Yours,
Emelia

> On 19 Sep 2025, at 23:27, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> pá 19. 9. 2025 v 22:37 odesílatel a <a@trwnh.com <mailto:a@trwnh.com>> napsal:
>> >  FYI: both bluesky and nostr now have did methods, each with millions of users, interoperable using w3c standards.
>> 
>> What does "interoperable" mean here?
> 
> It means different systems can talk to each other using the same data model and vocabulary, like how ActivityPub lets diverse servers interoperate.
>  
>> 
>> >  We could possibly spin up a simple ActivityPub method, along the lines of did:web so something like did:ap or did:activitypub
>> 
>> How would this did:activitypub differ from did:web, or https:?
> 
> https:
> Just a URL. No DID semantics.
> 
> did:web:
> Generic DID: needs a did.json hosted at the domain.
> 
> did:activitypub:
> Specialized DID: no did.json needed, just reuses the existing ActivityPub Actor JSON (public key, inbox/outbox) as the DID document.
> 
> Difference: did:activitypub is zero-config for Fediverse accounts.
>