Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add did:china method #612

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Add did:china method #612

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

LanceWzt
Copy link

@LanceWzt LanceWzt commented Dec 25, 2024

As a DID method registrant, I have ensured that my DID method registration complies with the following statements:

Copy link
Contributor

@peacekeeper peacekeeper left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Considering that this spec and the spec in #613 are equivalent, I think we are facing the same challenge here as in #603, which tries to register around 20 equivalent DID methods.

Claiming multiple DID methods with the same specification is in my opinion not compliant with rule 1 in https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#method-syntax, i.e.:

A DID method specification MUST define exactly one method-specific DID scheme that is identified by exactly one method name as specified by the method-name rule in 3.1 DID Syntax.

I would recommend registering a single DID method with additional : separators in the method-specific-id, e.g. did:sheca:china:123, did:sheca:shanghai:123, ...

@mwherman2000
Copy link
Contributor

The entire idea of a DID Method list/registry/glossary is going to become a moot point in 2025 when I move to "register" approximately 4.1 million DID Methods. Should I use one PR or two?

@brianorwhatever
Copy link
Contributor

@mwherman2000 you should use 4.1 million PRs.

@brianorwhatever
Copy link
Contributor

And you should have 4.1 million different specifications with implementations. If you're goal isn't just to waste people's time that is 🙂

@mwherman2000
Copy link
Contributor

That's how ridiculous the current approach is.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants