v3 consent to attribute release : half-thoughts on UIs

[Cantor, Scott]

On 9/17/14, 3:09 PM, "Tom Zeller" <tzeller at dragonacea.biz> wrote:
>
>Probably the UI, but I'd like the flow to be able to support it, so
>that the UI can be figured out later, and be customizable by
>deployers.

I think we should not spend the time to get that right, because the chance
of it working will be low, and there's no need if people can just copy/add
to a new flow from the old one. The flows are just implementation, so they
don't need to be frameworks themselves.

>Mostly I'm hoping to get the serialization of consent "right", so that
>it can be stored client-side, maybe passed as request parameters, and
>extensible.

I think the key to that is making it opaque to all surrounding code.
That's why I don't think the management page should actually manipulate
the data, only get enough from the storage format to be able to list the
results and link to the flows that know how to actually process it.

So maybe each flow's result should be a JSON object with some common base
structure/fields and the rest will be flow-specific.

-- Scott