On 4/21/16 15:14, Shane McCarron wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Adrian Bateman
> <adrianba@microsoft.com <mailto:adrianba@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
>
> No, in fact I've argued for the opposite. It's entirely reasonable
> for us
> to develop v2 of a registration API without having to go back and
> change
> a dependency in the Payment Request API. They should be independent so
> that they can proceed independently.
>
>
> Huh? I really don't understand. Payment App registration is a
> fundamental requirement of this ecosystem. The browser payment
> request API would have nothing to communicate with if there are no
> payment apps registered. Certainly the test environment (as I am
> designing it) registers a payment app with the implementation under
> test so that we can process messages from and to the user agent just
> as we will model those messages from the "payee". A normative
> reference in a W3C spec says "this spec requires that this other spec
> be in the environment too, as it DEPENDS upon this other spec". Surely
> you are not proposing that we push out a version of the browser
> payment api that does not require support for payment app registration?
>
I'm still coming up to speed on the specifics of the existing proposals;
however, with the high-level understanding of the basic purpose of the
payment functions and the registration functions that I do have, I find
proposals not to make the payment functions strictly dependent on the
registration functions troublesome.
I'll reiterate the point that Manu has made: the only way unlinking
these makes sense is in a world where we envision some implementations
that do one without the other. Allowing registration without payment is
clearly nonsense; and allowing payment without registration implies that
we're going out of our way to accommodate browsers with non-extensible,
baked-in payment providers.
And that would be very bad for users.
--
Adam Roach
Principal Platform Engineer
Office of the CTO, Mozilla