- From: Jacopo Scazzosi <jacopo@scazzosi.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2023 22:01:20 +0100
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: public-webid <public-webid@w3.org>
> DiD has nothing to do with neither Solid nor WebID. Mangling them will be a disaster, to put things mildly. Whereas I substantially agree with this statement, it’s worth noting that the DiD WG was started in 2019 and has already managed to publish the DiD spec as a W3C Recommendation through the Recommendation track. This recognition is much more visible than whatever controversy might or might not surround (or have surrounded) DiD. We are yet to demonstrate that we’re capable of getting to the same place, which reflects on the WebID spec itself. From this perspective, building on DiD is - on paper and leaving aside the respective pros and cons - a safer strategy than building on WebID. > only that I they should be explicitly stated in the WebID spec. This seems reasonable to me, given that there is functional overlap between the two. What is the argument against doing something that clarifies WebID’s place amongst other specs?
Received on Friday, 8 December 2023 21:01:42 UTC