- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 08:32:01 -0500
- To: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
- Cc: Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <7FA2B37C-A514-491F-A97B-A1D1271D78AC@w3.org>
> On Apr 4, 2016, at 3:36 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > An update on the CfC and the one niggling issue that is currently holding us up. > > I realized late in the day that there was a resolution taken by the group in January [1] where we agreed on the format for CurrencyAmount and this was not properly reflected in the specification. > > I submitted PR 101 [2] which amended the spec to reflect the consensus position of the group through 3 distinct changes: > > • Update the attribute names (from "value" to "amount"). > • Update the format of the amount to exclude the "hyphen" as an allowed character. > • Update the currency identifier to allow any string (not restricted to 3 char codes). > I asked the editors to merge this PR (despite their reservations) so that we had a spec that reflected the consensus of the group. > > Before merging I reverted change number 1. on the basis that it created an ugly repetitive naming pattern that would require a number of larger changes to rectify. > > The only person opposed to this was Dave Longley. I have taken Dave's comments on board and ask that he (and anyone else that feels the attribute names should be revised) submit a PR proposing new names across the board rather than in isolation. This is not a material difference from the consensus of the group and in my opinion is good enough for us to go to FPWD. > > Change 2 has left the spec with no support for negative amounts. As such I have submitted two other PRs [3] and [4] which reflect the two proposals for negative amount support that can be applied on top of the original format agreed upon by the group. > > I recommend that we merge one of these before we issue the CfC. We can continue the discussion on issue #119 [5] as to how the group wishes to proceed beyond the FPWD. Hi Adrian, I counter propose that we not try to resolve the issue, but mark it in the spec for further discussion. It is good to shed light on this discussion, but I do not believe we need to hold up FPWD for resolution. Ian > > There appears to be no objection to change 3 so this has been left as is. > > Adrian > > [1] https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/57 > [2] https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pulls/101 > [3] https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pulls/111 > [4] https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pulls/120 > [5] https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues/119 > > > > > > > -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Monday, 4 April 2016 13:32:05 UTC