Re: [w3c/webpayments] Letting the payment app decide between HTTP and Javascript communication (#130)

That link just says "RESOLVED at London f2f", which is an inadequate resolution to an issue. If you follow the discussion thread only Ian and yourself are involved in all of the threads combined (that I could see).

To be clear, I'm willing to try this approach but feel uncomfortable about it until we have more than just one of the browser vendors weighing in on the proposal. What do @adrianba, @zkoch, @rsolomakhin, and @tommythorsen think about the proposal?

I'm also calling resolutions like this out because if we say there was a WG resolution, we should be able to point to where that resolution happened as well as who participated in that resolution (as a W3C member, I expect to be able to see this sort of information). This also really matters when it comes to CR. If we say the WG resolved to do X or Y, we need to demonstrate support and opposition for the resolution. If we don't do that, it makes it very easy to do this during CR: "I object to the resolution because there is no documentation to backup the resolution."

---
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/webpayments/issues/130#issuecomment-236703888