Re: Update of CfC - Negative amounts

Have a look at PR 120

On Monday, April 4, 2016, Zach Koch <zkoch@google.com> wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ij@w3.org');>> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Apr 4, 2016, at 3:36 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com
>> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','ij@w3.org');>>
>> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Sent from a mobile device, please excuse any typos