Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material

> On Feb 11, 2016, at 9:10 AM, Manu Sporny <> wrote:
> 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.

See below on the sort of language that leads to my confusion.

> 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.

No, I clarified in the proposal on github that the first sentence is in the spec;
the second is in the issue block.

> 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”.

As I mentioned previously, I am not hearing that we are actively seeking
other input on extensibility. Our focus is on JSON-LD extensibility. I think
we should stay focused on that.

When you write “ (as one of potentially many extensibility stories - this is a bad idea, but I'm compromising here)”
it suggests quite strongly that you think there should only be one extensibility mechanism. I believe my
confusion about your expectations is grounded in this sort of assertion.


Ian Jacobs <>
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447

Received on Thursday, 11 February 2016 15:29:11 UTC