Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] Should payment method specifications contain WebIDL? (#132)

> I wonder if we need to use WebIDL in the payment method specifications.

I think we do not when I first saw it I wondered why a choice has been made to use WebIDL.

> This data is supposed to be passed through the user agent with no processing so I think we could simply use a JSON schema definition of some form or just examples and explanations?

I personally have no strong preference as far as how to express it without WebIDL. But as you point out, given that the UAs need to implement no parsing or handling of the parsed data, I can’t see any value to expressing it using WebIDL.

> WebIDL is over-kill in my opinion and may be a barrier to payments domain experts defining these specifications (which is what we desire).

Yes. WebIDL is a necessary evil in cases where it can’t be avoided. In any cases where it can be avoided, it should be avoided. At least as far as web authors-developers go, WebIDL is an expression language completely foreign/unfamiliar to the experiences of anyone except browser-engine developers.

---
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/issues/132#issuecomment-207913539