Minor adjustment to tdw-did production #48
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Andrew Whitehead <cywolf@gmail.com>
| @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ segment in the (optional) URL path. See examples below. The `domain-segment` and | |||
| would inevitably be wrong. | |||
|
|
|||
| ```abnf | |||
| tdw-did = "did:tdw:" *( domain-segment “.” ) scid 1*( “.” domain-segment ) ( “.” domain-segment ) *( ":" path-segment ) | |||
| tdw-did = "did:tdw:" *( domain-segment “.” ) scid 2*( “.” domain-segment ) *( ":" path-segment ) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is actually correct with the 1. Drummond did these and we went through them. Not the extra domain segment after the “1*” one. So it is say “0 or more sub-domains + SCID + one or more sub-domains and domain + the final TLD”
So the 2 would not be right.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I replaced 1*( “.” domain-segment ) ( “.” domain-segment ) with 2*( “.” domain-segment ) which is equivalent as far as I can tell
There was a problem hiding this comment.
No because that would you mean you have to have 3 segments after the SCID, and you only need two.
SCID.example.com is all that is required.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure where you're getting 3 from?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
scid 1*( “.” domain-segment ) ( “.” domain-segment )
That’s SCID + 1 or more DS + DS — that’s 2 or more.
If we put the 2 where you want it, we get SCID + 2 or more DS + DS, which is 3 or more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not just replacing a 1 with a 2 though, it's replacing the extra domain segment
|
OK - :-). You are right — I missed that. I knew when I started this, I would not “win" this discussion. And it is easier to understand with what you suggest. |
No description provided.