> On Nov 17, 2017, at 9:16 AM, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > > On 11/15/2017 09:46 PM, Marcos Caceres wrote: >> I'm supportive on the proviso that the spec is "gutted" (see [1], >> for example). > > -1, publishing a gutted NOTE for work that we want to incubate seems > pointless. Also, I question whether W3C publishing documents that > effectively state "Nothing to see here" is useful. Please note that the previous versions exist. I understand the proposal to write an empty Note to be a heads-up and avoid people stumbling on material and thinking it is more mature than it is. > > Alternate proposal: > > 1. Create a Web Commerce CG. -1 as I don’t think it is necessary. > 2. Hand the HTTP API spec over to them. I’d rather see it incubated in an existing CG. > 3. Redirect the TR space link to the ED in the WCCG. I have no problem saying in the stub: * The WG has discontinued the work * It is being incubated over here. > > If that fails to garner consensus, do the gutted note pointing to the ED > HTTP API spec in the WCCG. > > You can go here to support the creation of the Web Commerce Community > Group (search for Web Commerce): I would like to recommend against that until we’ve had further discussion of its necessity. Ian > > https://www.w3.org/community/groups/proposed/ > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: The State of W3C Web Payments in 2017 > http://manu.sporny.org/2017/w3c-web-payments/ > -- Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/ Tel: +1 718 260 9447Received on Friday, 17 November 2017 15:21:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:43:27 UTC