Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)

> Premature assertion by @ianbjacobs that the Google/Microsoft proposal is what we're going to adopt "Can you tell me what changes would be necessary to the Google/Microsoft proposal to ensure that it does not "forbid" someone from passing JSON-LD?" (#27 (comment)) - Where was that coming from?

Sorry to disagree, but I'm not sure how that quote could be taken to imply any kind of preference. I could ask you what changes would be necessary to your proposal to support shipping, but that wouldn't mean I favoured it. I think you might be inferring something that isn't there.

It is probably better if the rest of your points are addressed by the chairs, but I will say that if you're going to raise the issue then I think it's only fair that I point out both yourself and David seem to be doing all kinds of work over at that would impact our work but hasn't been raised or discussed in the WG or IG.

It seems a little strange to complain about transparency and back channeling whilst creating an entirely separate organization with a chair of the IG that lists [web payments work]( under its remit.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Received on Sunday, 21 February 2016 06:23:46 UTC