Re: Request for comments regarding standardization of Item Options

No problem with using the merchant-provate-item-data as you
describe in your article.  All I would like is a standard
way to handle item options like the size of your tee shirt. 
If/when GC implements options as a subtag to the
<item> then I can add suppprt for that at that time. 
The private info could remain and be handled as well.

Tony Birnseth

tonyb1sit.com
www.ez-order-manager.com
(503) 705-5661
sent from Palm so excuse fat thumbs!

-----Original Message-----
From: "Ropu" <rovagnatigmail.com>
To: google-checkout-api-integrationgooglegroups.com
Sent: 3/19/07 5:35 PM
Subject: [google-checkout-api-integration] Re: Request for
comments regarding standardization of Item Options

yes, thats true Tony, but also have in mind that the API
cannot cover all
and every ones bussines logic. It should be the most
standard posible, and
give devs some hooks to expand it (mechant private data and
merchant private
item data ;)

i wrote an article regarding that issue. but i used a
different approach for
the merchant-private-item-data

here is the link

http://www.ropusoft.com.ar/hack_book/merchant
_private_item_data.php

ropu

On 3/19/07, Tony Birnseth <tonyb1sit.com> wrote:
>
>  Fine by me.  We need something that someone (like me)
who does not
> control the front-end of the transaction can expect to
parse when receiving
> it on the back-end (notification side).  But since
ItemOptions are not yet a
> part of the Item subtags, we are forced to use the
> <merchant-private-item-data> tag until Google
implments the <ItemOptions> as
> a subtag of <Item>
>
> tony
>
> www.ez-order-manager.com
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From
google-checkout-api-integrationgooglegroups.com [mailto:
> google-checkout-api-integrationgooglegroups.com] *On
Behalf Of *Ropu
> *Sent Monday,
March 19, 2007 5:02 PM
> *To
google-checkout-api-integrationgooglegroups.com
> *Subject
[google-checkout-api-integration] Re: Request for comments
> regarding standardization of Item Options
>
> Tony, why not like this, is more intuitive and friendly
with xml structure
>
> <Item>
>    ...
>   <ItemOptions>
>     <ItemOption
name="Color">Red</ItemOption>
>     <ItemOption
name="Size">XXL</ItemOption>
>   </ItemOptions>
> </Item>
>
> and to get clear about level I or level II. This will
work for both level
> I AND level II, but for XML API,
>
> This wil also work, but with HTML API
>
> Suggest standardization for GC (long-term) for Level
I:
> item-option_1-name_1: Color
> item-option_1-value_1: Red
> item-option_2-name_1: Size
> item-option_2-value_1: XXL
>
> ropu
>
> On 3/19/07, tonyb1sit.com < tonyb1sit.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Writing this proposed standard as an interim
solution until GC defines
> > a standard (non-private) method for defining order
Item Options.



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "API Integration Basics" group.
To post to this group, send email to
google-checkout-api-integrationgooglegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-checkout-api-integration-unsubscribegooglegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-checko
ut-api-integration?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---