Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Currency amount (#101)

I think "value" is too generic and also seems potentially misleading to me (does a simple reading cause someone to think it represents the value of the currency, which fluctuates daily?). If we need to change something to avoid `amount.amount`, I'd prefer that we change the former, not the latter.

I'm a general -1 to any modeling of data that uses extremely generic properties that change their meaning based upon the position of a particular object -- when that data is intended to be serialized to a JSON representation and transmitted as such. I believe that's the case here.

Meaning should be better carried in the data itself. Instead this meaning is only present when the data has been parsed into a strongly-typed system that is running code that required reading human-only-consumable documentation. Using more specific terms makes it easier to apply machine-readable context after the fact. As "value" is probably the most generic term that could possibly be chosen here, I'm a big -1. "Amount" is still generic, but at least considerably less so. I'd also be ok with "monetaryValue" (or some other prefix) as a better alternative.

Let's remember the [Rule of Least Power](https://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/leastPower.html).  I think we often forget how much context or extra power is required to understand the data when we're making modeling decisions. We may not even consider it all -- which is not a good approach for the Web.

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/pull/101#issuecomment-204396830