Re: [w3c/payment-request] Editorial: use new user activation model (#885)

marcoscaceres commented on this pull request.



> @@ -956,11 +956,13 @@ <h2>
           follows:
         </p>
         <ol class="algorithm">
+          <li>Let |window:Window| be the [=relevant global object=] of the
+          [=environment settings object/responsible document=].

> Was the paragraph saying "you almost always want the relevant global" not clear enough? 

See below about relocating that text, as it's way too easy to miss!  And way too far down from where a reader needs it.

> What could we do to make it clearer?

The warning about not using "Incumbent" and "entry" needs to be moved to where "Incumbent" and "entry" is defined... it's currently sandwiched between two examples, and looks like it was a spec issue and not **really important guidance**. I totally just skipped over that thinking it was non-normative stuff and some random spec issue/discussion. 

Also, imagine, from my perspective, I just want to get in and out of the HTML spec as quickly as possible. I don't want to dive into the realms etc. unless I absolutely need to. I already understood how "triggered by user activation works", and all I care about is "will it consume it?"... rest is interesting but 🤷‍♂️. 

The majority of cases for checking the activation are to prevent usage without activation (and throw and error or whatever) - so clear(er) setup steps are still needed (get the global, do the check). Get in, get out, happy spec author (why I also suggested just adding an IDL extended attribute). 

Ok, so even after this discussion, and rereading stuff, I'm still not sure what I'm supposed to change this too? I'm really interested to see how other spec authors going to phrase this (I'm hopefully not the only thick/confused spec Editor here:)). 


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/payment-request/pull/885#discussion_r355382432