public-payments-wg@w3.org from March 2016 by author

Ade Bateman

• Re: [paymentrequest] Redirect specs to the Web Payments WG versions (#69) (Friday, 18 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42) (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• [paymentrequest] Redirect specs to the Web Payments WG versions (#69) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Use [SecureContext] instead of manually checking inside the PaymentRequest constructor (#58) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Use [SecureContext] instead of manually checking inside the PaymentRequest constructor (#58) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Spec references are all pretty outdated (#57) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Spec references are all pretty outdated (#57) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Support for "enrollment" use of API (#43) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Support for "enrollment" use of API (#43) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Overridng Common Payment Instruments (#21) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Overridng Common Payment Instruments (#21) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#68) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#68) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] boolean arguments are an anti-pattern; consider separate methods for complete() (#54) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] boolean arguments are an anti-pattern; consider separate methods for complete() (#54) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] At the time complete() is called, your ability to say success (true) or failure (false) may depend on the payment method (#67) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] At the time complete() is called, your ability to say success (true) or failure (false) may depend on the payment method (#67) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Use navigator.payments rather than creating a new object instance (#42) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Use navigator.payments rather than creating a new object instance (#42) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#41) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#41) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] No mention of non-decimal currencies (#40) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] No mention of non-decimal currencies (#40) (Thursday, 3 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#34) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] What is the format for payment method identifiers for distributed extensibility (#34) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#35) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Should well-known identifiers be used for ubiquitous payment methods (#35) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Standardizing Common Payment Instruments (#20) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Standardizing Common Payment Instruments (#20) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Payment instrument installation is platform-dependent (#5) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Payment instrument installation is platform-dependent (#5) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Should we support a delegated state for PaymentRequest? (#33) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Should we support a delegated state for PaymentRequest? (#33) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#28) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#28) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Should the web page be able to provide status information before calling complete() (#32) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Should the web page be able to provide status information before calling complete() (#32) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Clarity on Currency Conversion (#19) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Clarity on Currency Conversion (#19) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Should the Payment Request API only be available in a top-level browsing context? (#30) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Should the Payment Request API only be available in a top-level browsing context? (#30) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Merchant requesting arbitrary data from the UA (#16) (Wednesday, 2 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Merchant requesting arbitrary data from the UA (#16) (Wednesday, 2 March)

Adrian Hope-Bailie

• Re: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#66) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Adding registration proposal (#113) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#66) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: How is registration information updated? (#111) (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: How is registration information updated? (#111) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: App supports method but user has no instrument for that method (#110) (Wednesday, 9 March)

Anders Rundgren

• Re: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42) (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42) (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42) (Wednesday, 9 March)

Dave Longley

• Re: [paymentrequest] Conflation of manifest + payments seem unnecessary (#70) (Wednesday, 16 March)

David Ezell

• RE: Important telecon on Thursday 17th March at 16h00 UTC (12pm EDT, 9am PDT, 4pm GMT, (Thursday, 17 March)

Erik Anderson

• Re: [webpayments] Synonym Mapping from Web Environment Terminology to ISO 20022 Terminonogy (#95) (Tuesday, 8 March)

Ian Jacobs

• [Minutes] 31 March 2016 WPWG Teleconference (Thursday, 31 March)
• [Agenda] 31 March WPWG teleconference (Tuesday, 29 March)
• [Minutes] 17 March 2016 WPWG Teleconference (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: Important telecon on Thursday 17th March at 16h00 UTC (12pm EDT, 9am PDT, 4pm GMT, (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Updates to "Payment Request API Architecture" (Friday, 11 March)
• [Minutes] 10 March teleconference (Thursday, 10 March)
• New list: public-webpayments-specs@w3.org to mirror spec repo notifications (Thursday, 10 March)
• [Agenda] 10 March WPWG teleconference (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Issue updates based on WPWG FTF discussion - please be sure to add any others you have in mind (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: Blog post on WPWG meeting and next steps (Friday, 4 March)
• Blog post on WPWG meeting and next steps (Friday, 4 March)

ianbjacobs

• Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Conflation of manifest + payments seem unnecessary (#70) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Thursday, 10 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• [webpayments] Registration: How is registration information updated? (#111) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• [webpayments] Registration: App supports method but user has no instrument for that method (#110) (Wednesday, 9 March)

Jeff Burdges

• Re: [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Wednesday, 9 March)

Jeff Jaffe

• Re: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern (Thursday, 31 March)

Joerg.Heuer@telekom.de

• RE: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66) (Monday, 14 March)
• RE: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66) (Monday, 14 March)

Manu Sporny

• The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern (Thursday, 31 March)
• Re: Update on getting to a Call for Consensus (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Conflation of manifest + payments seem unnecessary (#70) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#66) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How do we protect certain data in the messages from certain parties in the flow as the use case requires? (#78) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Multilingual Support for human-readable labels (#84) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Multilingual Support for human-readable labels (#84) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How can the API support enrollment (future payment) use cases? (#65) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How can the API support enrollment (future payment) use cases? (#65) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#38) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request contain line item details? (#38) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should list of accepted payment methods be strings or objects? (#37) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should list of accepted payment methods be strings or objects? (#37) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should a payment request be just data, or a programmable object? (#36) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should a payment request be just data, or a programmable object? (#36) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should a payment method identifier (URL) resolve to a machine readable resource that describes the payment method? (#30) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Is tracking payment request state necessary? (#35) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Is tracking payment request state necessary? (#35) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should a payment method identifier (URL) resolve to a machine readable resource that describes the payment method? (#30) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should Payment Method Identifiers and Messages be expressed using a Linked Data Vocabulary? (#29) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should Payment Method Identifiers and Messages be expressed using a Linked Data Vocabulary? (#29) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should we expose status change events in the browser API? (#41) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should we expose status change events in the browser API? (#41) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should a Payment Request API have shipping address APIs? (#39) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should a Payment Request API have shipping address APIs? (#39) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? What is the extensibility story for the messages? (#27) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? What is the extensibility story for the messages? (#27) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should we have separate specifications for payment and registration of payment apps? (#26) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should we have separate specifications for payment and registration of payment apps? (#26) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Payment Method Identifier Registry should have oversight / formal structure (#25) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Payment Method Identifier Registry should have oversight / formal structure (#25) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Payment Request Architecture glossary should include IG glossary (#23) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Payment Request Architecture glossary should include IG glossary (#23) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#22) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Merge Payment Request Architecture with Capabilities Document (#22) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should we be concerned about the use of the Browser API in a non-HTTPS environment? (#20) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Should we be concerned about the use of the Browser API in a non-HTTPS environment? (#20) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How do we ensure that the payment request from the merchant is not tampered with before it gets to the payment app? (#19) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How do we ensure that the payment request from the merchant is not tampered with before it gets to the payment app? (#19) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How do organizations layer additional information in the core messages? (#18) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How do organizations layer additional information in the core messages? (#18) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are cloud-based payment apps supported? (#16) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are cloud-based payment apps supported? (#16) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#15) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#15) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are payment apps registered? (#14) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are payment apps registered? (#14) (Monday, 14 March)

Marcos Caceres

• Re: [paymentrequest] Conflation of manifest + payments seem unnecessary (#70) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Conflation of manifest + payments seem unnecessary (#70) (Thursday, 17 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Conflation of manifest + payments seem unnecessary (#70) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Conflation of manifest + payments seem unnecessary (#70) (Wednesday, 16 March)
• [paymentrequest] Conflation of manifest + payments seem unnecessary (#70) (Wednesday, 16 March)

mattsaxon

• Re: [webpayments] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#76) (Monday, 21 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Friday, 11 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: App supports method but user has no instrument for that method (#110) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Synonym Mapping from Web Environment Terminology to ISO 20022 Terminonogy (#95) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66) (Friday, 4 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Gh pages (#109) (Tuesday, 1 March)
• [webpayments] Gh pages (#109) (Tuesday, 1 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Taler flows (#106) (Tuesday, 1 March)

Melvin Carvalho

• Re: [paymentrequest] Conflation of manifest + payments seem unnecessary (#70) (Wednesday, 16 March)

Shane McCarron

• Re: Call for consensus update (Thursday, 24 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66) (Monday, 14 March)
• Re: Updates to "Payment Request API Architecture" (Saturday, 12 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: [webpayments] Registration: Should we support payee knowing user has payee-controlled payment app? (#112) (Wednesday, 9 March)
• Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42) (Wednesday, 9 March)

Telford-Reed, Nick

• RE: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern (Thursday, 31 March)
• Final editors' draft (Wednesday, 30 March)
• Update on getting to a Call for Consensus (Tuesday, 29 March)
• RE: Call for consensus update (Friday, 25 March)
• Call for consensus update (Friday, 18 March)
• RE: Important telecon on Thursday 17th March at 16h00 UTC (12pm EDT, 9am PDT, 4pm GMT, (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Important telecon on Thursday 17th March at 16h00 UTC (12pm EDT, 9am PDT, 4pm GMT, (Tuesday, 15 March)
• Telcon 3rd March 17h00 UTC (Wednesday, 2 March)

Web Payments Working Group Issue Tracker

• wpwg-ACTION-17: Submit a pr for http api into the proposals folder for the wpwg repo. (Thursday, 31 March)
• wpwg-ACTION-16: Reach out to wg participants to secure reviews (Thursday, 10 March)
• wpwg-ACTION-15: Review payment request api spec by march 15th 2016 (and attempt to do the other ones as well). (Thursday, 10 March)
• wpwg-ACTION-14: Look at dates when worldpay could host a meeting (Thursday, 3 March)
• wpwg-ACTION-13: Create poll for f2f days at tpac 2016 (Thursday, 3 March)

Zach Koch

• [webpayments] Adding registration proposal (#113) (Friday, 11 March)

Last message date: Thursday, 31 March 2016 19:35:37 UTC