[wg/did] Allow the did:web and did:key specifications to advance to CR

[plehegar]

From @msporny:
[[
Allow the did:web and did:key specifications to advance to Candidate Recommendation but no further (in order to ensure ample implementer feedback).
]]
From 2023 AC review.

[msporny]

Digital Bazaar supports this.

[peacekeeper]

Considering how contentious the topic of DID methods has been, it might be better to defer to the WG to decide which DID methods it wants to specify (if any at all), rather than picking them in advance.

[mprorock]

The w3c is not the correct place for this work. I strongly support the position taken by @OR13 on the list.

[msporny]

The w3c is not the correct place for this work. I strongly support the position taken by @OR13 on the list.

Strongly disagree that the World Wide Web Consortium is not the correct place for did:web, expect did:web to be forked if it goes somewhere else.

[OR13]

html forked, and it ended up being for the best.

It's a shame that DIDs have this method component in the identifier that causes people to think of the identifiers as names worth squatting on / controlling or owning.

In the case of did web, you end up having both the method and the web origin as being human friendly / ownable concepts.

I don't think did web, should move from W3C... I think people should use URLs instead of it... If you want to put a URN inside a URL as many people do, I think that's fine also.

[rxgrant]

Both did:web and did:key are fine topics for interested parties forming new W3C WGs, but will cause blocked consensus if attempted by DID-WG, because they are inherently problematic DID Methods.

[plehegar]

The charter was announced