- From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 10:12:46 +0200
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+eFz_+x+Kw_CgtAvyVVK1AH_6FSMZ3eerjY78AJB3i+d2zsOw@mail.gmail.com>
Great thanks! I'll review again and have my comments in by Tuesday too. If there's a general feeling that we have the scope well covered (i.e. addressed in the spec or called out via an issue marker) then I think we should issue a CfC. If there are significant concerns we can address them on Thursday's call. On 15 July 2016 at 04:58, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > 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: > > https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-http-api/#issue-3 > > >> *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 > discussion: > > https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-http-api/#issue-4 > https://w3c.github.io/webpayments-http-api/#issue-12 > > > 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 > https://manu.sporny.org/2016/json-ld-context-caching/ > >
Received on Friday, 15 July 2016 08:13:17 UTC