Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material

On 02/10/2016 09:52 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> 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.

The Web Payments Browser API already says says "this specification does
not suggest a single extension mechanism", it definitely does not say
"the one mechanism". I think that's where the miscommunication is
currently. Ian, you keep thinking we're saying that JSON-LD is the
/only/ way to extend objects. It is not. We're not proposing that (but
you keep asserting that we are).

JSON-LD is ONE mechanism (among potentially  multiple mechanisms) that
can be used to extend the messages. There may be others and we welcome
discussion around those other proposals as well.

We're saying it is /one/ way to extend (and that spec text has existed
since we made the Checkout API proposal).

> 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>."

That language in the issue paragraph? If so, +0.6 - I'd rather not name
the spec at this point because the best way to do it may be to put this
extensibility information in the Messaging spec.

We should just say something to the effect of "We're thinking about
extensibility but haven't made any firm decisions on it yet, there is a
proposal to do it in JSON-LD (as one of potentially many extensibility
stories - this is a bad idea, but I'm compromising here), we'd like to
hear from the Web community about that proposal, or any other proposal
that could do extensibility in a way that meets our use cases".

> 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.

+1

> * 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.

+1

Almost there...

-- 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/

Received on Thursday, 11 February 2016 15:10:25 UTC