Re: Review of Payment Apps Proposal

On 04/22/2016 12:40 PM, Dave Longley wrote:
> 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.

I agree with the statement above, but not this one:

> The spec should reflect what is best for users.

This is not always the reality at W3C (and other SDOs). Rather than
getting into all the details, I'll cite:

* HTML5 and the WHATWG
* The conflict around the Fetch proposal
* Encrypted Media Extensions

Once you have two or more very large players in any market colluding (or
agreeing to head in the same direction), what all of the other players
think is irrelevant.

The spec should reflect reality - what the browser vendors are willing
to ship, otherwise it's a work of fiction.

That said, it's in the browser vendor's best interest to avoid a
situation where they are the gatekeepers for payment apps as things get
nasty when folks like the EU steps in, see:

* EU vs. Google - Right to be Forgotten[1]
* Microsoft Corp v. European Commission - Browser Unbundling and the
resulting €561 million non-compliance fine[2]

Ian stated the goal well: Foster an open ecosystem for payment apps
(including browsers-as-payment-apps but not limited to those).

So, I'd like to hear what the plan is for doing this from the browser
vendors (if they want to decouple registration from all other specs).

-- manu


Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: The Web Browser API Incubation Anti-Pattern

Received on Friday, 22 April 2016 17:08:24 UTC