Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material

On 02/10/2016 02:22 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>> * 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.
> David and I drafted this text yesterday:
> “The ‘JSON-LD Payment Extension’ specification explains how to
> extend this API using JSON-LD.”

-1 - that's effectively saying nothing. Given no normative guidance in
the extensibility section, and pointing informatively to an informative
spec in that section is effectively worthless to implementers seeking
interoperability. It's a failure to standardize.

The WG needs to have a much better extensibility story (e.g. how are we
going to support offers, invoices, and receipts?), and the proposal
above isn't it.

Add to this that the only active participants in this extensibility
discussion have been you, myself, Longley, and AdrianHB. I don't support
us settling on any language at this point because there is clearly still
disagreement on the extensibility mechanism and the WG is not engaging
in the discussion.

So, how about this instead - an ISSUE marker in the extensibility
section that states:

ISSUE: The Working Group is actively seeking guidance on the best set of
extensibility mechanisms for Web Payments messages and objects. One such
proposal is <link to JSON-LD Web Payments Messages>. If your
organization prefers a certain extensibility mechanism for Web Payments,
such as JSON-LD or some other mechanism, please send your comments to

Then, we push the FPWD out there and actively seek input.

-- 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

Received on Thursday, 11 February 2016 02:24:06 UTC