Re: Comments on HTTP API before publishing FPWD

On 07/14/2016 11:29 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
>> *Terminology* If we are going to pull the terminology in we need
>> to fix it up asap. If it's going to be used in public working
>> drafts it needs a clean up.
> I'm fine w/ making a pass on this, but don't think it's necessary 
> before FPWD.
> Really? I'm not crazy about that but I'd like to hear what the group
>  thinks.
> Perhaps we can use a static snapshot that we edit inline and then 
> push back to the shared glossary when it stabilizes?

For the time being, I have added an issue marker to note that the
terminology needs to be updated:

>> *Push Payments* We need to demonstrate both a push and a pull
>> based payment. This is still very pull based.
> Agree that we should do some work in the push-based payments case, 
> but seeing as how none of our other specs talk about push-based 
> payments, I don't think it's necessary to get this in there (other 
> than possibly an issue marker) before FPWD.
> PaymentRequest is very agnostic in this regard. It feels like HTTP is
> very pull-focused in comparison.

I have added issue markers to note that this is an area of active

> I will not object to publishing if the issues in the text are also
> in the issue list and any issues in the list are also in the text as
>  markers (if appropriate).

I have added all issues that were only in the specs to the issue tracker
for Core Messages and HTTP API. Let me know if I didn't add specific
ones that you wanted to add.

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
JSON-LD Best Practice: Context Caching

Received on Friday, 15 July 2016 02:59:14 UTC