Fix DID fragment examples.

[msporny]

This PR is an attempt to address issue #898 by removing a confusing fragment example from the spec and fixing some of the fragment naming to make it easier to understand what the fragment is pointing to.

---

Preview | Diff

[peacekeeper]

I guess removing this here is okay, if the relativeRef example is too difficult to understand. But the risk is that readers will think DID fragments are only used to identify something inside the DID document, which is not the case..

[msporny]

I guess removing this here is okay, if the relativeRef example is too difficult to understand. But the risk is that readers will think DID fragments are only used to identify something inside the DID document, which is not the case..

Once we get clarity on w3c/did-resolution#181, I'm happy to put a clearer example back in (or point to an example in DID Resolution on how relativeRef fragments might work). At present, the current example is confusing to newcomers and us oldtimers can't seem to agree if it's right or not.

I hesitate to put any relativeRef examples in the DID spec because we don't mention relativeRef at all, and so it would be confusing to a reader to use a feature that isn't explained at all in the spec. I think the place to put this example is in DID Resolution, where we can point to how relativeRef works.

[msporny]

Editorial, multiple reviews, no changes requested, no objections, merging.