Re: Concerns about Core Messages specification

On 20 July 2016 at 17:56, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 07/20/2016 05:31 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
> > At this point, I believe it is premature for this group to publish
> > such a document given that we are still finalizing the browser APIs
> > and the HTTP APIs and that both of these are evolving independently.
>
> The HTTP API spec has a normative dependency on the Core Messages spec.
> Publishing the HTTP API spec without also publishing the Core Messages
> spec would result in the HTTP API spec not having a normative definition
> of the messages used in the spec.
>

Is this necessary?

I would prefer we define the HTTP API messages in the HTTP API spec and
then abstract these and the browser API messages into a separate document
when it is clear that is a good idea.

I don't believe a signal to the community that there are core data models
that may have multiple implementations is correct while there are not
multiple implementations that have stabilized around that data model.


>
> Even if the group doesn't end up aligning the messages between the specs
> we're creating, we still need to publish Core Messages because the HTTP
> API spec depends on it.
>

Why would we do that if the only implementation of the core messages is the
HTTP API?


>
> We can address your concern by adding an issue marker to the spec before
> we publish it (you choose the wording that would work best for you).
>

I believe it is premature to publish the Core Messages spec as it sends the
wrong signal about the current consensus of the group. I don't believe the
group is in consensus that there should a shared data model for all APIs.
Publishing Core Messages suggest that there is.


>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern
> http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/
>
>