Re: WPWG Priorities

Thanks Zach!

I have been doing triage on the issues as an ongoing effort at the same
time as putting on my "participant" hat occasionally to weigh in.

So far I think I have managed to isolate what I believe are the high
priority issues and have set their milestones accordingly. I'll need to
have a fresh look with your list in hand.

We have a pretty full agenda for tomorrow already but let's see how we go
in trying to get to these.

On 21 April 2016 at 02:16, Zach Koch <> wrote:

> Hi Chairs and WG Members -
> *Note: I'm speaking here as a member of the WG, not as an editor.*
> Given that we've now reached FPWD, I want to propose we start focusing on
> resolving issues that will allow us to start shipping experimental
> implementations of the API on the web platform. This means focusing on
> issues that affect the fundamental shape or interaction model of the API.
> By focusing on a key set of issues, we can hopefully prevent the case where
> different, incompatible versions of the API are being shipped.
> To that end, I've identified the following short list of issues as ones I
> think we should focus on getting consensus around, hopefully starting on
> tomorrow's call:
> *1.) Payment Method Identifiers (#11
> <>) - *This is at the
> top of the list for me. We need to make sure merchants can declare payment
> methods in a way that is consistent across implementations. We have a few
> proposals on the table, but I think it's complex enough that it will merit
> time on a call (or the full call) to move forward.
> *2.) Finalizing how "total" is passed in (#18
> <>)*
> *3.) Complete() and its accepted values (#17
> <>, #129
> <>)*
> *4.) Support for collection of email and phone (#1
> <>, PR #65
> <>) - *It seems like
> we're circling around consensus here, so discussion on a call might help to
> quickly resolve. At the very least, I'd like to resolve how we can get
> "email" in.
> This is not to say that other issues the group has highlighted are not
> important (e.g. registration), and I very much hope that discussion of
> those continues on Github in parallel. But given that we only have one
> opportunity per week to discuss live, I'd like to start making concrete
> progress on the above issues.
> Thanks,
> Zach

Received on Thursday, 21 April 2016 02:21:11 UTC