Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)

@ msporny,

I wrote: "schema.org is for people to publish data that can be discovered and processed on the open web"

You wrote: "Yes, like anything related to electronic commerce."

I don't believe that is the case. Some things (e.g., offers, as you point out) are published on the open Web. But initiating payment processing is not.
 
> The assertion in this thread is that there are common messages that can be used both in the browser API and outside of the browser API. 

We agree that's a goal.

> The Web Payments CG specs demonstrate that it is possible to do so. 

Yes. 

> schema.org shows us that it's then possible to take those common messages and drive search traffic to a merchant site and use that same message to execute the payment.

Yes (at least I take your word for it).

> If we just stick to WebIDL trapped in a browser API, we don't get any of those benefits.

I do not support requiring JSON-LD at this time in the Web Payment API for at least these reasons:

* It favors an extensibility mechanism without experience to understand whether the ecosystem wants to use that extensibility mechanism.
* I do not foresee that we will get consensus in the W3C community to require JSON-LD, which will slow the progress of the group.

Instead, I support:
 
 * Conformance based on JSON, which is widely adopted and where I doubt there will be any strong disagreement.
 * The API allows (but does not require) JSON-LD (or any other JSON compatible format) so that those parties that wish to use it may do so.
 * Discussion to see whether there is interest in publishing a spec on best practice if you happen to use JSON-LD. 

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/27#issuecomment-178979179