Re: Review of Payment Apps Proposal

On 04/22/2016 12:16 PM, David Illsley wrote:
> I don't think I understand how browsers can be prevented from allowing
> payment without supporting registration?

They can't be prevented from doing anything (unless we're talking by
force of law) -- they just won't be compliant with the spec. The spec
should reflect what is best for users.

> On 22 April 2016 at 01:42, Adam Roach <
> <>> wrote:
>     On 4/21/16 15:14, Shane McCarron wrote:
>>     On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Adrian Bateman
>>     <<>
>>     <>> 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

Dave Longley
Digital Bazaar, Inc.

Received on Friday, 22 April 2016 16:40:55 UTC