- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:14:14 -0400
- To: public-payments-wg@w3.org
On 03/29/2016 01:23 PM, Telford-Reed, Nick wrote: > * MANU, nine of the pull requests not yet merged are from you. Here > is the rationale for not merging them and suggested fixes: Issue > marker not specific to current text: #79, #81, #82, #85 #81, #82, and #85 have integrated the suggested fixes from AdrianHB and are ready to be merged. #79 belongs (at least, in part) in the payment request spec for the reasons (new comments) outlined in the PR. > #84 (communication with native wallets). Fixed. > #77 (web apps) Fixed. > Issue regarding encryption of responses > > #87 (since encryption applies to response data, not defined in the > payment Request API). > > Suggested fix: Include in basic card payment spec per Github > comments Fixed. Moved to basic card payment spec. > Potentially out of scope for the WG: > > #73 (cross browser registration of payment apps) > > Suggested fix: Do not include until the WG has reached consensus on > the issues and scope. Withdrawn in favor of PR #96. > Non-issue: #83 > > Suggested fix: Do not include issue marker, since line items are > optional in the specification. This is an issue if most merchants choose to not include line item data once they find out that the browser vendors could mine that data. Walmart and Target, for example, have specifically stated that they do not want to do this. I assert that this is an issue and we want to raise that issue so we get proper merchant feedback on the line items. That should be it, I have processed all of the issues requested by the Chairs. -- manu -- Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/
Received on Wednesday, 30 March 2016 15:14:38 UTC