Just came upon this HN submission about the objections by Big Tech + Mozilla (together dominating the browser landscape) that have been filed at the W3C against the DID proposal (which interests me for non-blockchain use cases) and how that may erode @timbl vision of The Decentralized Web:
I think this post is claiming much more than it proves.
Yes—there are issues with DID. And I have never been a big fan myself, for some of the reasons that those companies also state.
But belief or disbelief DID by itself has little bearing on the view of decentralization/universality that W3C has. It’s just one possible piece of a complex puzzle, and not necessarily a key piece.
So I find the post intellectually dishonest in the sense that they equate the future of DID to the W3C’s vision on decentralization, which is simply not correct.
Yes, I agree on this. I posted the article here, because some standard processes in the VC efforts have overlap with Solid in terms of objectives, and them following a different kind of process in which they have to deal with some dominating stakeholders directly (whose influence and actions are interesting to the whole industry at large).
I would say they equate objections to did by browser vendors/big tech to objections to decentralization.
If they are right, then the browser-independent approach that Solid has adopted is either a good bet, or will eventually also run into opposition from browser vendors/big tech if it undermines their position. If the trend towards tightening cross-site security continues, that already seems like a threat to Solid.