Re: [w3c/manifest] Integration with service workers (#161)

> relying on the manifest and processing model seems wrong.

If you assume that the manifest data model is only available in the form of a JSON object in a file, sure.

> I'm sorry, but that's a bogus claim to make. Firstly, 99% of the time, payments are going to be going through the OS preferred payment provider (i.e., Apple Pay or Android Pay).


> The (web) applications that hook into the payment providers are the ones that provide value - by affording the actual acquisition of goods and services: the payment providers are appendages, much like PayPal is for eBay, etc. If payment providers make nice (web) apps, then they will get installed too. But no one shouldn't have to "install" a payment provider's app - only have enough details for a monetary transaction to take place.

I'm sorry but I don't think you understand the model that is being proposed for payment apps and why they will be installed or who would publish them. Your perspective is very card-centric and assumes that payment apps will just be glorified card number providers or built into the browser/OS.

On the one hand you are saying that the tight coupling of the data-model to the installation process is "by design" and on the other hand abstracting parts of this spec out for re-use is a good idea. So which is it?

All I proposed was that by doing the latter aspects of this spec would be useful in new use cases such as payment apps. I.e. Payment apps is a use case where the appmanifest data model could be re-used in registering a ServiceWorker that is a payment app and therefor needs a label, icon etc.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/issues/161#issuecomment-246687240