Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A better example perhaps is `www` or `mail` or `news`. Or magnet links. Or JWT on top of JSON.

In the era of The Information Superhighway, the World Wide Web, and spinning Netscape comets, people were quite ok standardizing on `www` as a prefix that used dns to route your web traffic to the web server. Meanwhile, AOL had a concrete use case of "keywords" that monopolized tv ad time for half a decade and went nowhere.

The web is full of standards that exist on top of other standards. This standard allows people to name things. People will figure out how to make interesting use cases with names without a central authority finding pre-existing use cases.



What exactly are you saying? That DID is as useful as an optional naming convention for server names that some people liked to use in the 90s?

If that is the comparable case, what is the value add of w3c standardizing this?

Personally this standard sounds closer to SOAP/WSDL/etc to me.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: