Re: Thanks to all and next steps

> On Jun 26, 2015, at 1:39 PM, Nick Shearer <nshearer@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jun 26, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Joseph Potvin <jpotvin@opman.ca> wrote:
>> 
>> RE: "the messaging standard used is specific to both the payment instrument and the jurisdictional preference"
>> 
>> Nick, That statement is self-contradictory.
> 
> We agree to disagree.

I have just written a message on this topic with the goal of steering energy from the question of a specific reference to
how we can be most helpful to a future Working Group:

    On references from W3C specifications and how we can help a future Working Group
    https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webpayments-ig/2015Jun/0168.html

This Interest Group does not need to resolve today what references are required in a specification from a future Working Group.
Rather, this Interest Group can help inform the future WG by doing a few things such as:

 * Identifying key liaisons and dependencies for the WG’s charter, so that all parties may work together toward interoperability, with flexibility
    in how they achieve those ends

 * Creating a catalog of useful references (e.g., with the abstract of each one handy) that can be consulted by the Working Group (and others).
   I have proposed that the liaisons task force work on this (cf action 88).

I welcome other ideas for how we can best inform (but not over constrain) a future Working Group.

Ian


--
Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447