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

Define the fragment resolution algorithm. #137

Closed
jyasskin opened this issue Dec 16, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

Define the fragment resolution algorithm. #137

jyasskin opened this issue Dec 16, 2024 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels
normative This item is a normative change. pr exists A Pull Request exists to address this issue.

Comments

@jyasskin
Copy link
Member

https://w3c.github.io/cid/#retrieve-verification-method has

Let verificationMethod be the result of dereferencing the vmFragment from the controllerDocument according to the rules of the media type of the controllerDocument.

This spec registers application/cid as a media type for controller documents, but it doesn't specify a fragment resolution algorithm as https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6838.html#section-4.11 allows. Plain JSON also doesn't. I think you're aiming at the fragment resolution algorithm used by JSON+LD, but per https://w3c.github.io/cid/#context-injection, the semantics aren't meant to rely on JSON+LD being used. So, I think you need to define how fragments are dereferenced in application/cid documents.

@msporny msporny added the normative This item is a normative change. label Dec 18, 2024
@msporny msporny self-assigned this Dec 18, 2024
@msporny msporny added the ready for pr This issue is ready to have a pull request created for it. label Dec 18, 2024
@msporny
Copy link
Member

msporny commented Dec 18, 2024

Yes, good point. We hadn't done that before because we presumed JSON-LD fragment processing, but you're right, now that we don't presume that (because of the media type), we'll have to define the rules for application/cid.

@msporny
Copy link
Member

msporny commented Jan 12, 2025

PR #142 has been raised to address this issue. This issue will be closed once PR #142 has been merged.

@msporny msporny added pr exists A Pull Request exists to address this issue. and removed ready for pr This issue is ready to have a pull request created for it. labels Jan 12, 2025
@msporny
Copy link
Member

msporny commented Jan 20, 2025

PR #142 has been merged, closing.

@msporny msporny closed this as completed Jan 20, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
normative This item is a normative change. pr exists A Pull Request exists to address this issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants