Re: Update of CfC - Negative amounts

Hi Ian and Adrian -

I would propose we limit the PR to just updating the currency identifier to
allow any string. There is consensus around that. We can add an issue
marker for the other two points. I don't think we want to go to FPWD
without a way to expose a negative number.

-Zach

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:32 AM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:

>
> > 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
>
>
>
>