Re: Multiple Wallets

> On Aug 3, 2015, at 3:47 PM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
> 
> RE: "Our approach..."
> 
> Does Adrian speak on behalf of the W3C WPIG on this topic, or as a Member of the W3C WPIG?

Adrian voiced Adrian’s view of the IG’s work.

> 
> RE: "the importance of the legalese"
> 
> I'm sure you understand that's not the point I raised. To repeat: "My proposal is related to the absolute minimum required" functional premises of a term that is important enough to appears 30 times in the Charter. We can agree to disagree about the importance of deliberate ambiguity about what that term means. Such deliberate ambiguity in a W3C specification in this field seems very unwise to me.

Let’s remember that this is a charter not a specification. My read of the group is that it is not cost-effective at this moment in time (preparing the charter) to
develop a more precise definition.

> So I hope WPIG members will forgive my persistence on the point.
> 
> RE [David Singer]: "at the moment, the ‘digital wallet’ is like a leather wallet; it holds banknotes, credit cards, and the like (instruments)"
> 
> Yup:
> A banknote is a monetary token, and the digital form of that token goes into a depository.
> A credit card, and an aggregator (like PayPal) are sets of payment algorithms, and they go into a repository.
> Wallet = Depository + Repostory
> 
> I haven't grasped why my recommendation is controversial.

I don’t know that it’s controversial. I expect the IG to continue to work on definitions and to refine them as we grow the
community of those who are participating in the work, and using the work.

I am not hearing consensus at this time to further change the definitions in the charter.

Ian

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447