Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Postpone release of an HTTP API FPWD until the messaging schemas have stabalized. (#73)

> If you wish to :-1: the proposal can you address these too?
> * There will be benefit to aligning the messaging used in both the HTTP API and JavaScript API.

Yes, this is true.

> * The group's efforts are currently focused on the JavaScript API and the design of this API is likely to impact the design of any messages that are exchanged via the API.

You could replace "JavaScript" with "HTTP" above and the statement would still hold. They both affect each other, and ideally we'd use the same messages in both APIs (not to mention a Bluetooth API, an NFC API, etc.)

The points above are not what I'm primarily concerned about, though, so it doesn't follow that we should de-prioritize the HTTP API just because I agree with your two points above. Publishing a document as an FPWD sends a message on our priorities. It's far more powerful than just saying that the HTTP API is important to us - of course it is, but if we delay publication of an HTTP API FPWD by six months, it's clear that it's not really a priority for us. There are many things that are important to us in this group, and we'd have no problem saying that, but what we publish actually demonstrates our priorities.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Received on Thursday, 28 January 2016 15:07:23 UTC