docs: add gift extension draft#508
Open
seungy0 wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
582bf46 to
78f940b
Compare
78f940b to
d3d227e
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
Adds an exploratory Gift Extension note for recipient-based gifting flows.
In recipient-based gift shopping, the buyer purchases a product for another
recipient. The protocol difference from ordinary shopping is that recipient
selection can happen before product selection, after product selection, or
during checkout.
The draft focuses on a privacy-preserving shape:
continue_urlfor product-before-recipient handoff,identifier exposure to platforms or agents,
This is intentionally not a complete schema PR. It is intended to collect
protocol feedback before schema work:
dev.ucp.shopping.giftthe right common capability boundary for giftshopping flows?
continue_urlsufficient for product-before-recipient flows,and does UCP need a more explicit initiation or return contract for
recipient-before-product flows?
No JSON schema is added in this PR. The goal is to validate the capability
boundary and flow model before proposing a normative schema.
Refs #449
Category (Required)
ucp-schematool (resolver, linter, validator). (Requires Maintainer approval)Checklist
The schema/model checklist items are not applicable for this docs-only draft.