Re: WPWG On NOT abandoning the CG specs (was Re: Update on Web Payments Working Group)

On 9/26/16 6:04 AM, Pindar Wong wrote:
> Well said indeed Melvin.

+1


>
> p.
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Melvin Carvalho
> <melvincarvalho@gmail.com <mailto:melvincarvalho@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 5 April 2016 at 23:05, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
>     <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com>> wrote:
>
>         On 04/04/2016 06:49 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>         > Lastly, please please please, dont abandon the CG specifications.
>         > They are some of the best work anywhere.  In a sense the CG is in
>         > some ways ahead of the WG at this point.
>
>         We have no intention of abandoning the concepts in the CG
>         specifications. We will fight for the consensus positions of
>         this group
>         - level playing field, financial inclusion, innovative
>         ecosystem, etc.
>
>         The recent scuffle in the Web Payments Working Group is not
>         the end. A
>         decision was made to use the Microsoft/Google specification as
>         the base
>         specification for the Web Payments Browser API. We have the
>         ability to
>         change those specifications. One approach is by submitting
>         counter-specifications like this:
>
>         https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/pull/115
>         <https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/pull/115>
>
>         Another approach is for people from this community to pick an
>         issue to
>         fight for/against and move that particular item forward:
>
>         https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues
>         <https://github.com/w3c/browser-payment-api/issues>
>
>
>     Great!
>
>     The way I see it there are three webs, and three payments webs:
>
>     Roughly speaking:
>
>     The Web 1.0 era (c. 1990-2000) is about web sites.  A typical
>     payments solution would be a banking site or paypal.  This is a
>     model that's works well on the web and can be standardized in a
>     fairly predictable way by identifying common pain points, use case
>     and creating uniform APIs.  Definitely a pls.
>
>     The Web 2.0 era (c. 2000-2010) is more about web pages.  Typically
>     this allows a page to be a first class citizen of the web and
>     dynamically access the network and update itself.  This has lead
>     to patterns (primarily AJAX) that allow remote interaction.
>     Payments now can be done in the browser sandbox within a page, but
>     in a very similar fashion to web 1.0, however without page
>     reloads.  Similarly it makes sense for the WG to standardize this
>     work and create APIs.
>
>     The web 3.0 era (c. 2010-2020+) is about data.  Data, and
>     particularly linked data, on the web becomes a first class
>     citizen.  This is a fundamentally different model, but also one
>     that very few people have yet to understand.  It is in a sense a
>     more distributed and decentralized model of the web in line with
>     the original vision.  Payments in this paradigm new, exciting, and
>     very powerful, and can solve use cases existing and not yet
>     imagined to date.  It can also handle all existing use cases via
>     bootstrapping.  In this sense it's very similar to technologies
>     like bitcoin.  It also covers a lot of the work done with JSON LD
>     which deals with first class data primitives on the web.
>
>     While it's valuable to try and modernize the work going on in the
>     WG which is really revolved around web 1.0/2.0 technologies imho,
>     it seems there is a political will do dumb things down to much
>     that independent web developers are struggling to have their use
>     cases addressed.
>
>     It's common at the IETF to view a specification and have in your
>     mind what future versions of that spec will look like.
>
>     So Id like to work on essentially W3C Web Payments NEXT, without
>     waiting for the modernization of the vendor payments system,
>     shopping cart experience, choosing a credit card, and other nice
>     things the WG is doing, but have relatively little relevance to
>     the exciting modern internet payments phenomena.  I think the WG
>     has dropped the ball, for various reasons on this one, but will
>     possibly still have useful deliverables.  Let's anticipate that,
>     make it the best it can be, and perhaps look toward the next
>     version of payments which can bootstrap the old and create a whole
>     new era of use cases on the web ...
>
>     I've spent a lot of time doing infrastructure and plumbing work
>     for this.  Im now ready to actually code stuff on top, and
>     integrate it into real world payments workflows and live crypto
>     currencies.
>
>     I'd really like to take the recommendations here, and in the block
>     chain community group to make very exciting payments workflows, in
>     live systems, and incorporate existing useful workflows.
>
>
>
>
>         > I think there is a compelling case to be made though interoperable
>         > implementations.  Im hoping to spend the next 3 quarters of this
>         > year working on some.  This can often be a better way of convincing
>         > people than simply a specification ...
>
>         Agreed. Implementations matter. Digital Bazaar will be doing an
>         implementation of the Web Payments HTTP API and the hope is that
>         provides a counter-weight to some of the Browser API design
>         decisions.
>
>         -- manu
>
>         --
>         Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu
>         Sporny)
>         Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
>         blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern
>         http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/ <http://manu.sporny.org/2016/browser-api-incubation-antipattern/>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 26 September 2016 15:31:58 UTC