Payment Request Architecture glossary should include IG glossary about webpayments

[msporny]

We should also decide where the glossary goes in each spec. I propose that we put it up top, right after the introduction (other groups have found that this approach works for most readers because it cuts down on the amount of jumping around you have to do when reading a spec).

[halindrome]

PFWG has some code that limits the contents of the included glossary to
only the terms that are used. That might be handy.

On Sun, Dec 6, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Manu Sporny [email protected]
wrote:

We should also decide where the glossary goes in each spec. I propose that
we put it up top, right after the introduction (other groups have found
that this approach works for most readers).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#23 (comment).

Shane McCarron
[email protected]

[ianbjacobs]

A document should define the terms that it needs. Before a global import, I think the editor should create a list of the words that look like they need definitions. Then we can cross-check with the IG glossary and do whatever is appropriate (e.g., import some, make changes, etc.).

However, as with the discussion on the WG call the other day, I think it makes sense to allow the WG deliverables to evolve a bit first, so that we have some feedback on the definitions as needed in those docs. We can then align IG and WG terms as needed.

[msporny]

@ianbjacobs There is no global import, the example given above only imports the words that the document uses. Editors also have the option to define something locally and use it.

From a technical perspective, I think we're covered with the variety of ways this could play out.

[msporny]

Migrated to w3c/payment-request#43