Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material

> On Feb 10, 2016, at 8:23 PM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

It is not the job of the reference in the base spec to establish how normative the
companion spec is. That is especially true at this time when we don’t have consensus
on the answer.

Please note that I did not say that the companion spec would necessarily be informative.
I said we need to do more work so that we can determine how normative it
should be.

(In the first email on this thread I wrote: “...and thus how normatively we express the material.”)

> 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.

As I said at the beginning of the thread, I support the group developing an
extensibility story with JSON-LD.

There is currently no consensus on that story. It is therefore premature to
speak of any extensibility mechanism as “the one mechanism” for this API.

> 
> 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.

The disagreement on the mechanism is precisely why we cannot include
any normative-sounding language at this time.
> 
> 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
> public-payments-wg-comments@w3.org.
> """
> 
> Then, we push the FPWD out there and actively seek input.

We have a deadline of the end of March for FPWD. In my view we need to
decouple the base specification from the extensibility story. We need to focus
now on the most pressing issues directly related to the base spec.

I support the idea of an issue marker and propose this language:

  "The <a>JSON-LD Payment Extension specification</a> explains how to extend this API using JSON-LD.
   NOTE: The Working Group seeks feedback from the community on that specification and how well it
   furthers interoperability needs in the payments ecosystem. To provide feedback, see the <a>status section above</a>."

Here are some comments on the difference from your proposal:

 * I have not heard a lot of discussion within the WG about extensibility mechanisms other than the JSON-LD proposal.
   Therefore, I think at this time people should focus their feedback on that proposal. If we have another one on the table at
   some point, we will point people to that one as well.

 * The status section should include the full instructions for feedback (e.g., email, github, etc.). So I prefer to point people
    to the status section for info on providing feedback.

Ian

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