- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 15:33:15 -0600
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, Zach Koch <zkoch@google.com>, Web Payments Working Group <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <7D5584B5-A3BD-427C-93DE-D658E3D4EE40@w3.org>
> On Feb 8, 2016, at 3:21 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > > On 02/08/2016 11:05 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote: >> When combined with the revised browser API proposal from the CG it >> seems to tick many of the boxes we want to cover. > > That was what we were attempting to do, so it's nice to see some > validation on the attempt, thanks AdrianHB. :) > >> Would it not make sense for the Extensibility section of the browser >> API to stand alone in it's own document that describes the full >> end-to-end flow of data from semantic markup of an offer in a search >> result to payment to receipt email with semantic markup? > > It would if: > > 1. The reference to the Messages spec from the browser-based API specs > was normative. It is not appropriate to have a normative reference to material that is not required for conformance. > 2. There was a Messages / Extensibility specification that was > REC-track. > > If those two things happen, then we could take the section out and put > it elsewhere, but only if we're clear about how all of this is > interpreted as JSON-LD. > > To put it another way, it's a part of the narrative, it's clear what we > mean, and there is normative language around JSON-LD. > > What we don't want is to point to some informative note on how to extend > the messages using JSON-LD because that won't lead to interoperability. I do not believe we understand the ecosystem well enough to require JSON-LD. I support the idea of a standalone specification as a way to build the conversation around the use of JSON-LD. However, I believe it should be labeled as the beginning of a conversation, rather than a set of rules that must be followed. Ian > >> I can imagine at least 5 documents that we could produce on the back >> of this work: > > #1-#4 seem just fine to me. I don't have an opinion on #5 (card payments > spec) because I don't really know how that spec would work. > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice > https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/ > -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Monday, 8 February 2016 21:33:22 UTC