Re: [w3c/browser-payment-api] editorial: clarify that payment handler data is converted (#536)

> On 27 May 2017, at 12:56 am, Dave Longley <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> 
> @adrianhopebailie said:
> 
> I think we should stop using WebIDL, I'm yet to hear a good argument why we are besides that it's easy to write specs with in ReSpec. As I suggested in that issue I think we should follow the data modeling language used for web app manifest.
> 
> So are you suggesting that browsers will not accept any new payment methods in the ecosystem for which they haven't shipped built-in data validation?
> 

Of course not. 

The data type for URL identifiers is object. For standardized short strings it is a WebIDL dictionary. 

I don't see what's so hard to understand. It's what we've had all along.

> That's the opposite of the goal of this system.
> 
Of course - I never suggested that. That would be ridiculous. 

> That simply won't work. The whole point of .data is that anyone can invent a new payment method with whatever data model they want in there. If they need browsers to ship new data validation for it then the whole design is broken.
> 

I never suggested otherwise. I don't know how Adrian would reach this absurd conclusion. 
> I agree with @adrianhopebailie here as I did a long while back when this first came up in the WG. This is an important point -- and I believe Web IDL only leaked in here because the browsers were special casing basic-card because they were implementing it directly. This was an issue long ago in the WG where, as I recall, @adrianhopebailie, myself, and a few others were on the losing side of the argument but we foresaw saw this and other extensibility concerns (as mentioned briefly by @adrianhopebailie above).
> 
> I don't know what this means moving forward for telling browsers what to do here at this point, but I would very much like to see this information left as opaque as possible with respect to the browser implementation. Whatever we do, the key point is this: we do not want to create an environment where browsers must be upgraded in order to support new payment methods.
> 
If anyone wants to discuss this seriously, then please start presenting actual code examples. I'm not interested in having email style discussions without actual code and tests. 

The reason we are talking past each other is because we are not using code. So stop - look at my code examples above, and prove whatever you want to prove (or disprove) with them. 

> —
> You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
> 


-- 
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/536#issuecomment-304318572