Add did:viewonwebsite DID method

[thevowtechs-lgtm]

This Pull Request proposes registration of the did:viewonwebsite method.

Specification: https://viewonwebsite.com/spec/
Resolver: https://viewonwebsite.com/resolve/?did=did:viewonwebsite:viewonwebsite.com
Well-known DID: https://viewonwebsite.com/.well-known/did.json
DID Configuration: https://viewonwebsite.com/.well-known/did-configuration.json
Repository: https://github.com/thevowtechs-lgtm/Did-viewonwebsite

Authority: Hardcoded Logic
Architect: Tamer Maher Eldebes
Contact: authority@hardcodedlogic.com
Jurisdiction: Dubai, UAE

The JSON file has been validated against the registry requirements and all automated tests pass.

---

DID Method Registration

As a DID method registrant, I have ensured that my DID method registration complies with the following statements:

• The DID Method specification defines the DID Method Syntax.
• The DID Method specification defines the Create, Read, Update, and Deactivate DID Method Operations.
• The DID Method specification contains a Security Considerations section.
• The DID Method specification contains a Privacy Considerations section.
• The JSON file I am submitting has passed all automated validation tests below.
• The JSON file contains a contactEmail address .

[github-actions]

🤖 AI Preliminary Specification Review

This is an advisory, automated review of the DID Method specification(s) referenced in this pull request, checked against the registration checklist. It does not replace review by the registry editors.

❌ One or more submissions did not pass the preliminary checklist review. See the details below and address the failing MUST items, then push an update to re-run this check.

methods/did-viewonwebsite.json — method did:viewonwebsite

Specification: https://viewonwebsite.com/spec/

Preliminary verdict: ❌ FAIL

The specification is reachable and defines syntax, CRUD operations, and a substantive Security Considerations section, but it entirely lacks a Privacy Considerations section, which is a clear-cut MUST failure.

	Item	Level	Status	Notes
✅	M1. Specification is reachable and is a DID Method specification	MUST	pass
✅	M2. DID Method Syntax is defined	MUST	pass
✅	M3. CRUD operations are defined	MUST	pass
✅	M4. Security Considerations section present and substantive	MUST	pass
❌	M5. Privacy Considerations section present and substantive	MUST	fail	There is no Privacy Considerations section anywhere in the specification; privacy is not addressed at all, which is a clear-cut MUST violation.
✅	M6. Method name is indicative and non-generic	MUST	pass
✅	M7. No unreasonable legal, security, moral, or privacy harms	MUST	pass
✅	M8. Human-readable description of the addition	MUST	pass
✅	S1. contactEmail present	OPTIONAL	pass
⚠️	S2. verifiableDataRegistry present	OPTIONAL	warn	The field is present but its value 'DID Specification' is not a meaningful description of where DIDs are anchored; the actual anchor appears to be the viewonwebsite.com domain/resolver.
⚠️	S3. Intellectual-property posture is clear	SHOULD	warn	The spec asserts 'All Rights Reserved' and 'sovereign' proprietary control (single-authority root, hardcoded enclave), which raises potential concerns about open implementability and IP posture for a public registry.

[ottomorac]

Hello @thevowtechs-lgtm,

Please add a "Privacy Considerations" section. Some examples here:

• https://github.com/iden3/did-iden3/blob/main/did-iden3-method.md#security-and-privacy-considerations
• https://docs.cheqd.io/product/architecture/adr-list/adr-001-cheqd-did-method#security-considerations
• https://identity.foundation/didwebvh/v1.0/#security-considerations

Thanks.