Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material

> On Feb 10, 2016, at 12:53 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On 02/10/2016 10:05 AM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>> PROPOSAL
> 
> Ian,
> 
> I talked with Dave Longley and we'd be fine w/ this proposal:
> 
> PROPOSAL: Update the normative "Extensibility" section of the browser
> API specs to include this text:
> 
> * Implementations MUST preserve unrecognized properties and their
>  associated values.

Ok.

> * To extend interfaces in this API using JSON-LD, the rules in
>  COMPANION_SPEC MUST be used to ensure proper message interoperability
>  with this API and systems that use JSON-LD-based payment messages.

Information about the normative status of the companion spec belongs in that specification.

At this time, because we don’t know the status of the companion specification, it is
inappropriate to suggest it is required.

Should the companion specification become a W3C Recommendation with normative
provisions, it will still be unnecessary to include strong language in the reference from
the base specification because the base specification will have no dependency
on the companion specification. If W3C recommends the companion specification,
that will be necessary and sufficient as an indication of its normative status.

David and I drafted this text yesterday:

   “The ‘JSON-LD Payment Extension’ specification explains how to extend this API using JSON-LD.”

I believe that is the proper level of reference, and certainly at this time.

Ian

--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447