- From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2025 20:43:51 +0200
- To: emelia <emelia@brandedcode.com>
- Cc: a <a@trwnh.com>, Social Web Incubator Community Group <public-swicg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKaEYhKGDRoMMwC2nqfw5jF0NTaUT+xJiF6p2hatRHgf+LUc+w@mail.gmail.com>
so 20. 9. 2025 v 2:39 odesílatel emelia <emelia@brandedcode.com> napsal: > 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` > <http://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. > Nice work, Emelia, adding OAuth there is a cool idea. I think you’re along the right lines; there’s some wiggle room in syntax, but a generic form could end up looking something like: did:ap:<host>:<user> One aspect is that unlike did:web, no did.json would be needed since the Actor JSON is already there. Definitely something we could explore further. > > 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> 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. > > > >
Received on Saturday, 20 September 2025 18:44:07 UTC