Fragment identifier semantics are independent of URI scheme

[msporny]

@gklyne wrote:

3. DID fragments - the URI specification reserves the interpretation of fragment ids to the MIME type of a representation of the identified resource, and: "Fragment identifier semantics are independent of the URI scheme and thus cannot be redefined by scheme specifications." -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-3.5 I would suggest the fragment id interpretation maybe could be associated with a MIME type defined for the DID document?

[msporny]

Create a PR that adds a MIME Type registration section to the specification.

[peacekeeper]

Do we need a new MIME type or use the existing application/ld+json ?

[msporny]

@peacekeeper wrote:

Do we need a new MIME type or use the existing application/ld+json ?

I expect we need a MIME subtype... application/did+ld+json (or something like that). If you don't do that, you have to come up with heuristics wrt. figuring out if you're actually dealing w/ a DID Document. The latter can be done, but it's not the recommended path for Web architecture.

[TomCJones]

What is the status of minetype

[msporny]

This issue has been transferred for processing by the DID WG.