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

@adrianhopebailie wrote:
> I believe this is related to #146 so perhaps @dlongley or @msporny you could have a stab at this?

Sure, happy to... but before we do, I'd like more thoughts on the core messages spec as I think that's the right approach:

1. Define the messages in a very general way (using human readable text). For example: http://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/core-messages/#paymentrequest
2. Point to where the messages are defined for use in more formal development environments. For example:
   * Point to Browser API for WebIDL - http://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/core-messages/#expressing-messages-as-webidl
   * Point to JSON Schema for JSON - http://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/core-messages/#expressing-messages-as-json
   * Point to JSON-LD Frame + JSON Schema for JSON-LD - http://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/core-messages/#expressing-messages-as-json-ld

The core messages spec already takes this approach: 

http://w3c.github.io/webpayments/proposals/core-messages/

I think this addresses everyone's concerns and is more or less inline w/ @adrianhopebailie's proposal - thoughts @adrianhopebailie @dezell @AxelNennker @sideshowbarker @halindrome @mattsaxon @dlongley ?

---
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-212948374