Re: Update of CfC - Negative amounts

> 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