Re: SEEKING INPUT: Priority of adding hasEnrolledInstrument method to Payment Request API in version 1

Thanks for explaining, Ian.

My vote is for (2).

Andy

> On Nov 7, 2018, at 12:00 PM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 7, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Andy Estes <aestes@apple.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Ian,
>> 
>>> On Nov 7, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 2. I would like the editors to specify the hasEnrolledInstrument method but prefer that it not be a normative part of Payment Request API v1
>> 
>> Just so I understand the choices, can you say a little more about this option?
>> Would the definition be normative in the editor’s draft but not in the version published on w3.org? Is the plan to then include it in a future v2?
> 
> Hi Andy,
> 
> That’s a fair question and I admit I have not put much thought into it. 
> 
> I think there are at least two points to make, both of which imply “we need more discussion”:
> 
> 1) Does the group plan to include this in v2? My sense from TPAC is that this would be desirable. However, we have not as a group
>     discussed in detail how we plan to add features after v1. (Personally I would like to see us develop a process where we agree
>     to add features incrementally.) 
> 
> 2) How do we refer to an informative feature? We can include an informative note that the group will continue work on a second method.
>     How we include and annotate features that are for post v1” is something to discuss, and i expect Marcos has some ideas on this :)
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
> https://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel: +1 718 260 9447
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2018 21:28:45 UTC