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

> WebIDL is over-kill in my opinion and may be a barrier to payments domain experts defining these specifications (which is what we desire).
I probably have to take some of the blame the WebIDL shows up in various places.  The reason for that has to do with the following:
1) the W3C NFC specification (written in IDL) and the fact that there was - at least early on - some hope of a more fully featured NFC edition that would include payment.  
2) the general idea that software stacks that have components defined in IDLs (not necessarily WebIDL) tend to be stronger than those that are simply ad-hoc.
3) an IDL gives some idea - in a more formal way, of how responses align with requests, and some idea of how various features like "Promises" fit.
> WebIDL is an expression language completely foreign/unfamiliar to the experiences of anyone except browser-engine developers.
That WebIDL was unsuitable in this area was not clear earlier.  Michael is an expert, so no argument here.
I would recommend at least JSON Schema definitions for the objects in question, since I think that will make a better spec.  We are, I guess, convinced that the choreography aspects of a definition in WebIDL (weak, admittedly) are not worth the frieght.

---
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-208086860