Reset the DID ABNF - removed "$" and "!"

[mwherman2000]

Removed "$" and "!" from grammar. Reset "$" back to ";" pending resolution of #163

[peacekeeper]

@mwherman2000 Independent of the question whether the changes at RWoT#8 in Barcelona reflect community consensus, your PR here proposes that both did-fragment-ref and did-service-ref start with a ; character. Is this what you meant to propose?

[mwherman2000]

Good catch @peacekeeper - fixed

[dmitrizagidulin]

@mwherman2000 - So, the context for the proposed change from ; to $ is twofold:

1. $ is more readable/visible than ; (which is only a few pixels away from :, which is used throughout the did).
2. $ looks like S for "service".

In any case, I don't think this repo is the place to argue this. That paper is just that - a Rebooting paper.
There is going to be a PR to the DID spec with the ABNF from this paper, with explanations.
So, that PR would be the place for debate.

[mwherman2000]

As I stated here #163 .,,,

"$" is particularly problematic because "$" is already in common usage in many accepted international specifications for URLs:

OASIS/ISO OData System Query Options: http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata/v4.01/cs01/part2-url-conventions/odata-v4.01-cs01-part2-url-conventions.html#_Toc505773217

In addition, these changes came from a closeted discussion behind a one-off, pay-to-play event from which no notes, attendee list, or recording are available - no record of the discussion, the participants, the justification for the changes - it doesn't represent the opinion of the broader communities that meet weekly basis every Tuesday and every second Thursday. It was a total surprise to those of us who met yesterday on the Thursday DID Resolution concall.

[mwherman2000]

@dmitrizagidulin These following aren't adequate justifications ...they're fluff ...especially in light of #163:

$ is more readable/visible than ; (which is only a few pixels away from :, which is used throughout the did).

This is irrelevant because the DID syntax is a syntax/procotol for developers to implement in software. It's not a human readable language.

$ looks like S for "service".

Fluff.

There is going to be a PR to the DID spec with the ABNF from this paper, with explanations.

This sounds like what was decided in Barcelona is being jammed down our throats (see #164 (comment)). Why are you not:

1. posting the proposed changes as a did-spec issue
2. then initiating an open discussion
3. build community consensus
4. then, possibly, proceed to a PR?

CC: @talltree @peacekeeper

[andrewhughes3000]

Hi people - I think this discussion thread might be misplaced. This repo is not related to the W3C CCG work other than perhaps having a few common participants. Andrew

On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:24 AM Michael Herman (Toronto) < ***@***.***> wrote: @dmitrizagidulin <https://github.com/dmitrizagidulin> These following aren't adequate justifications ...they're fluff ...especially in light of #163 <#163>: $ is more readable/visible than ; (which is only a few pixels away from :, which is used throughout the did). This is irrelevant because the DID syntax is a syntax/procotol for developers to implement in software. It's not a human readable language. $ looks like S for "service". Fluff. There is going to be a PR to the DID spec with the ABNF from this paper, with explanations. This sounds like what was decided in Barcelona is being jammed down our throats (see #164 (comment) <#164 (comment)>). Why are you not: - posting it as a did-spec issue - then initiating an open discussion - build community consensus - then, possibly, proceed to a PR? CC: @talltree <https://github.com/talltree> @peacekeeper <https://github.com/peacekeeper> — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#164 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASYM_F5frkLt9NFZFyMU8JPwdepjmcZWks5vUnKOgaJpZM4bkilf> .

-- Andrew Hughes CISM CISSP In Turn Information Management Consulting o +1 650.209.7542 m +1 250.888.9474 1249 Palmer Road, Victoria, BC V8P 2H8 [email protected] https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-hughes-682058a Digital Identity | International Standards | Information Security

[mwherman2000]

I agree. It raises further questions why this document was placed in this repository.

[peacekeeper]

@shannona I don't think it was the intention of the authors for this to be merged; you should probably revert the merge while the discussion is ongoing.

[shannona]

Thanks; reverted.