added section on interop. fixes #37 - #58
Conversation
Co-Authored-By: Justin Richer <github@justin.richer.org>
Co-Authored-By: Justin Richer <github@justin.richer.org>
| <div> | ||
| <h3>Interoperability</h3> | ||
| <p>The working group will define a syntax for DIDs, a data model for DID Documents, and the requirements for DID methods. Interoperability of implementations for DIDs and DID Documents will be tested by evaluating an implementation's ability to create and parse DIDs and DID Documents that conform to the specification. Interoperability for DID methods will be determined by evaluating each DID method's specification to | ||
| determine, at a minimum, </p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The first two sentences are good. All the rest either belongs in the DID specification, or the DID Primer. W3C Charters typically talk about what the input documents to a WG are, what is in and out of scope for the WG, and what the expected output is. Almost everything else is left to the WG.
I don't disagree with any of this content, it's just that the more content you add to a W3C Charter, the more there is to debate and block and complain about. All the stuff about "Requirements that a human must manually check" is a huge red flag for many W3C members, so putting that in here is asking for trouble, IMHO.
We should state what the group is expected to do, which is to define requirements on DID Method specifications... we don't need to list those requirements here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm okay with what Manu suggests. Joe, if you agree, do you want to make that change?
| </ul> | ||
| </div> | ||
| <div> | ||
| <h3>Interoperability</h3> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Having a section on interop is really strange for a W3C Charter... I don't know of any other charter that has one. For an extreme example, here's the web platform's charter -- look at the list of deliverables for the group, it's massive... note no section on interop: https://www.w3.org/2017/08/webplatform-charter.html (but the statements about interop are exactly the right sort of thing to say in a charter). W3C has a definition of interop, we don't need to elaborate so deeply on it.
|
The more I think about this PR, the more I think that the text that exists in the current W3C Charter regarding interop is appropriate. I'm not convinced that we need all of this text in the charter. It should be in the DID spec, and if people get cranky about what is and is not interop, we can point them to the DID spec's section on conformance (which should effectively say what you wrote in this PR, @jandrieu). |
|
I'm good with moving this to the spec. So we accept #57 and find a place for this in the other repo? I'm also good with the suggested changes, which I'll incorporate into the did-spec PR. |
Yes, exactly. |
|
@jandrieu could you please raise a PR on the DID spec, please? I'm leaving this PR open until you do that so we don't forget. I suggest putting it in the section about Conformance. |
|
Ummm... there is no section on Conformance. But I'll find a place. |
Suggest you lift text from the first four paragraphs here: |
|
That user appears to be —
— and as such, I do not believe it should be approving changes on any W3C-related repo, as it cannot make relevant patent and other commitments. |
6 participants
No description provided.