Monday, 29 February 2016
- Re: [paymentrequest] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#68)
- Re: [Minutes] 23-24 February face-to-face meeting
- Re: [paymentrequest] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#68)
- Re: [paymentrequest] At the time complete() is called, your ability to say success (true) or failure (false) may depend on the payment method (#67)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#68)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#28)
- Under W3C Member Review: Hardware Security Working Group Charter (until 1 April)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#28)
- JSON signatures for "node.js"
Friday, 26 February 2016
- Re: [paymentrequest] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#68)
- Comments on Payment Request API
- Re: [Minutes] 23-24 February face-to-face meeting
- Re: [Minutes] 23-24 February face-to-face meeting
- Re: [paymentrequest] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#68)
- Re: [paymentrequest] At the time complete() is called, your ability to say success (true) or failure (false) may depend on the payment method (#67)
- Re: [Minutes] 23-24 February face-to-face meeting
- Re: [Minutes] 23-24 February face-to-face meeting
- Re: [paymentrequest] At the time complete() is called, your ability to say success (true) or failure (false) may depend on the payment method (#67)
Thursday, 25 February 2016
- Re: [webpayments] Should the Web Payments API cater for the invoicing part of the full web purchase flow ? (#60)
- [Minutes] 23-24 February face-to-face meeting
- Re: [webpayments] Gh pages (#108)
- [webpayments] Gh pages (#108)
- [webpayments] Gh pages (#107)
- Re: [webpayments] Gh pages (#107)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#68)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#68)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#68)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#68)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66)
Wednesday, 24 February 2016
- Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#28)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#68)
- [paymentrequest] Constructor should not include "total" in list of items (#68)
- [paymentrequest] At the time complete() is called, your ability to say success (true) or failure (false) may depend on the payment method (#67)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66)
- RE: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66)
- Re: [webpayments] Repo my apps (#103)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66)
- Re: [webpayments] Taler flows (#106)
Tuesday, 23 February 2016
- [paymentrequest] Payment App Registration: Same Origin is problematic for identifying_url (#66)
- Re: [webpayments] Taler flows (#106)
- [webpayments] Taler flows (#106)
- Draft of PaymentRequest Registration Doc Available
- Re: [webpayments] Gh pages (#105)
- [webpayments] Gh pages (#105)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up initial proposal for payment app registration spec (#27)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up initial proposal for payment app registration spec (#27)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up initial proposal for card payment method spec (#31)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up initial proposal for card payment method spec (#31)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#28)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Add link to registration explainer to index page. (#65)
- [paymentrequest] Add link to registration explainer to index page. (#65)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Add registration explainer (#64)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Add registration explainer (#64)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#28)
- [paymentrequest] Add registration explainer (#64)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Error types used are weird and excessive (#56)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Error types used are weird and excessive (#56)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Algorithm for complete(success) does not use its argument (#55)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Algorithm for complete(success) does not use its argument (#55)
- Re: [paymentrequest] "JSON object" is confusing; consider "JSON-serializable object" (#59)
- Re: [paymentrequest] "JSON object" is confusing; consider "JSON-serializable object" (#59)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Don't have a <dfn> for "user agent" (#60)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Don't have a <dfn> for "user agent" (#60)
- Re: [paymentrequest] State in each class's definition which internal slots it has (#61)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Example 1 typo: payment.complete(true) should be paymentResponse.complete(true) (#53)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Add skeleton of basic card spec and tidy-up API spec (#63)
Monday, 22 February 2016
- [paymentrequest] Add skeleton of basic card spec and tidy-up API spec (#63)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#28)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#28)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#28)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#28)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Write-up proposal for shipping address fields (#28)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Example 1 typo: payment.complete(true) should be paymentResponse.complete(true) (#53)
- [webpayments] Minor Changes (#104)
- Re: [webpayments] Minor Changes (#104)
Saturday, 20 February 2016
Monday, 22 February 2016
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
Sunday, 21 February 2016
- RE: Dinner at Croqueta on Sunday at 7pm in San Francisco
- RE: Dinner at Croqueta on Sunday at 7pm in San Francisco
- RE: Dinner at Croqueta on Sunday at 7pm in San Francisco
- JSON Signatures for Financial Messaging
- Re: Dinner at Croqueta on Sunday at 7pm in San Francisco
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- [webpayments] Repo my apps (#103)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: CHANGE OF VENUE: Sunday dinner now at La Mar Cebichería Peruana at 7:30pm
Saturday, 20 February 2016
- CHANGE OF VENUE: Sunday dinner now at La Mar Cebichería Peruana at 7:30pm
- Re: Dinner at Croqueta on Sunday at 7pm in San Francisco
- Re: Dinner at Croqueta on Sunday at 7pm in San Francisco
- Re: Dinner at Croqueta on Sunday at 7pm in San Francisco
- Re: Dinner at Croqueta on Sunday at 7pm in San Francisco
- Re: Dinner at Croqueta on Sunday at 7pm in San Francisco
- Re: Dinner at Croqueta on Sunday at 7pm in San Francisco
- Dinner at Croqueta on Sunday at 7pm in San Francisco
Friday, 19 February 2016
- New PaymentRequest Doc
- Re: [paymentrequest] Add rationale and update document locations (#62)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Add rationale and update document locations (#62)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Add rationale and update document locations (#62)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Add rationale and update document locations (#62)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Add rationale and update document locations (#62)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Add rationale and update document locations (#62)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Add rationale and update document locations (#62)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Add rationale and update document locations (#62)
- [paymentrequest] Add rationale and update document locations (#62)
- Re: [webpayments] Removed Spaces From File Name (#102)
- [webpayments] Removed Spaces From File Name (#102)
- Re: [webpayments] Gh pages (#101)
- [webpayments] Gh pages (#101)
- RE: The Open Banking Standard (HTTP API)
- Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42)
- Re: Draft requirements for discussion at the WPWG FTF meeting
- Re: Draft requirements for discussion at the WPWG FTF meeting
- Draft requirements for discussion at the WPWG FTF meeting
Thursday, 18 February 2016
- [paymentrequest] State in each class's definition which internal slots it has (#61)
- [paymentrequest] Don't have a <dfn> for "user agent" (#60)
- [paymentrequest] "JSON object" is confusing; consider "JSON-serializable object" (#59)
- [paymentrequest] Use [SecureContext] instead of manually checking inside the PaymentRequest constructor (#58)
- [paymentrequest] Spec references are all pretty outdated (#57)
- [paymentrequest] Error types used are weird and excessive (#56)
- [paymentrequest] Algorithm for complete(success) does not use its argument (#55)
- [paymentrequest] boolean arguments are an anti-pattern; consider separate methods for complete() (#54)
- [paymentrequest] Example 1 typo: payment.complete(true) should be paymentResponse.complete(true) (#53)
- Re: Face to face - some important reading
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Face to face - some important reading
- [Minutes] 18 Feb WPWG call
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42)
- Re: [webpayments] How do we prevent keyboard hooking during payment? (#90)
- Re: The Open Banking Standard (HTTP API)
- Re: The Open Banking Standard (HTTP API)
- Meeting today
- Re: The Open Banking Standard (HTTP API)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: The Open Banking Standard (HTTP API)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: The Open Banking Standard (HTTP API)
- The Open Banking Standard (HTTP API)
- Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42)
- Re: [webpayments] Review: UPI - a method and standard that went BETA in India (#100)
- Re: [webpayments] Review: UPI - a method and standard that went BETA in India (#100)
- [webpayments] Review: UPI - a method and standard that went BETA in India (#100)
- Re: [webpayments] How do we prevent keyboard hooking during payment? (#90)
- Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42)
- Re: [webpayments] Multilingual Support for human-readable labels (#84)
- Re: [webpayments] Multilingual Support for human-readable labels (#84)
- Re: [webpayments] Transition and Adoption (#94)
- Re: [webpayments] How do we prevent keyboard hooking during payment? (#90)
- Re: [webpayments] Transition and Adoption (#94)
- Re: [webpayments] Transition and Adoption (#94)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
- Re: [webpayments] PISP under PSD2_SCT flows_Shopper PISP (#99)
- [webpayments] PISP under PSD2_SCT flows_Shopper PISP (#99)
- Re: [webpayments] Added Credit Transfer clarifications (#98)
- Re: [webpayments] Synonym Mapping from Web Environment Terminology to ISO 20022 Terminonogy (#95)
- [webpayments] Added Credit Transfer clarifications (#98)
- Re: [webpayments] Synonym Mapping from Web Environment Terminology to ISO 20022 Terminonogy (#95)
- Re: [webpayments] PISP under PSD2_SCT flows_Merchant PISP.pml (#97)
- [webpayments] PISP under PSD2_SCT flows_Merchant PISP.pml (#97)
- Re: [webpayments] Minor fixes/annoatations (#96)
- [webpayments] Minor fixes/annoatations (#96)
- Re: [webpayments] ISO20022 terminology adoption (#93)
- Re: [webpayments] Synonym Mapping from Web Environment Terminology to ISO 20022 Terminonogy (#95)
- Re: [webpayments] Synonym Mapping from Web Environment Terminology to ISO 20022 Terminonogy (#95)
- Re: [webpayments] ISO20022 terminology adoption (#93)
- Re: [webpayments] Synonym Mapping from Web Environment Terminology to ISO 20022 Terminonogy (#95)
- [webpayments] Synonym Mapping from Web Environment Terminology to ISO 20022 Terminonogy (#95)
- Re: Sanity check on API using flows from Flows Task Force
- Re: [webpayments] ISO20022 terminology adoption (#93)
- RE: Sanity check on API using flows from Flows Task Force
- Re: Sanity check on API using flows from Flows Task Force
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- RE: Sanity check on API using flows from Flows Task Force
- Re: [webpayments] ISO20022 terminology adoption (#93)
- Re: Sanity check on API using flows from Flows Task Force
- Re: [webpayments] ISO20022 terminology adoption (#93)
- Re: Sanity check on API using flows from Flows Task Force
- Re: [webpayments] Flow terminology (#92)
- Re: [webpayments] Flow terminology (#92)
- Re: [webpayments] ISO20022 terminology adoption (#93)
- Re: [webpayments] ISO20022 terminology adoption (#93)
- Re: [webpayments] ISO20022 terminology adoption (#93)
- [webpayments] Transition and Adoption (#94)
- [webpayments] ISO20022 terminology adoption (#93)
- [webpayments] Flow terminology (#92)
Tuesday, 16 February 2016
- Re: Sanity check on API using flows from Flows Task Force
- RE: Sanity check on API using flows from Flows Task Force
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] Security and Privacy Self-Review (#61)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] Fix typos (#91)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] How do we prevent keyboard hooking during payment? (#90)
- Re: [webpayments] How do we prevent keyboard hooking during payment? (#90)
- Re: [webpayments] How do we prevent keyboard hooking during payment? (#90)
Monday, 15 February 2016
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: ACTION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED: Flows ready for wider review
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the Web Payments API cater for the invoicing part of the full web purchase flow ? (#60)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] How can the API support enrollment (future payment) use cases? (#65)
- Re: [webpayments] How do we prevent keyboard hooking during payment? (#90)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Re: ACTION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED: Flows ready for wider review
- [webpayments] Fix typos (#91)
- [webpayments] How do we prevent keyboard hooking during payment? (#90)
- Re: [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- [webpayments] What are the WPWG February 2016 face-to-face prioritized issues (#89)
- Re: ACTION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED: Flows ready for wider review
- Re: Sanity check on API using flows from Flows Task Force
Sunday, 14 February 2016
- Re: ACTION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED: Flows ready for wider review
- Re: ACTION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED: Flows ready for wider review
- Re: Sanity check on API using flows from Flows Task Force
- RE: Sanity check on API using flows from Flows Task Force
- Re: [webpayments] Consolidate updated from Freed into single file (#88)
- [webpayments] Consolidate updated from Freed into single file (#88)
- [webpayments] Consolidate updated from Freed into single file (#87)
- Re: [webpayments] Consolidate updated from Freed into single file (#87)
- RE: ACTION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED: Flows ready for wider review
- Re: [webpayments] Returned Skin to default, moved target flows out of directory structure, removed partial flows for SEPA Credit Transfer (#80)
- Re: [webpayments] Consolidate updated from Freed into single file (#86)
- [webpayments] Consolidate updated from Freed into single file (#86)
- Re: [webpayments] Changes based on discussion with Ian Jacobs (#85)
- [webpayments] Changes based on discussion with Ian Jacobs (#85)
- Re: [webpayments] PSD2 about Payment Initiation 4 Feb 2016 (#82)
Saturday, 13 February 2016
- Re: [paymentrequest] Tidy-up per discussion (#52)
- [paymentrequest] Tidy-up per discussion (#52)
- Re: [webpayments] Multilingual Support for human-readable labels (#84)
Friday, 12 February 2016
- Sanity check on API using flows from Flows Task Force
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- [webpayments] Multilingual Support for human-readable labels (#84)
- Question about I18N comment [Was: Checkout API spec published]
- Re: [paymentrequest] Fix spec nits based on implementation experience. (#51)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Fix spec nits based on implementation experience. (#51)
- [paymentrequest] Fix spec nits based on implementation experience. (#51)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Change the PaymentRequestUpdateEvent model to better match FetchEvent (#50)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Change the PaymentRequestUpdateEvent model to better match FetchEvent (#50)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [webpayments] How can the API support enrollment (future payment) use cases? (#65)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [webpayments] Should we expose status change events in the browser API? (#41)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Change the PaymentRequestUpdateEvent model to better match FetchEvent (#50)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Change the PaymentRequestUpdateEvent model to better match FetchEvent (#50)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Change the PaymentRequestUpdateEvent model to better match FetchEvent (#50)
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: [webpayments] How can the API support enrollment (future payment) use cases? (#65)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Change the PaymentRequestUpdateEvent model to better match FetchEvent (#50)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Change the PaymentRequestUpdateEvent model to better match FetchEvent (#50)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Change the PaymentRequestUpdateEvent model to better match FetchEvent (#50)
- Re: [webpayments] Should we expose status change events in the browser API? (#41)
- Re: [webpayments] Should we expose status change events in the browser API? (#41)
- Re: [webpayments] How can the API support enrollment (future payment) use cases? (#65)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- [paymentrequest] Change the PaymentRequestUpdateEvent model to better match FetchEvent (#50)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Clarify that decimal separator is optional to match regex. (#49)
- [paymentrequest] Clarify that decimal separator is optional to match regex. (#49)
Thursday, 11 February 2016
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Comments on MasterPass flow
- Re: [paymentrequest] No mention of non-decimal currencies (#40)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [paymentrequest] No mention of non-decimal currencies (#40)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] Should we expose status change events in the browser API? (#41)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79)
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: [web-payments-browser-api] Use of "MUST" in sentence might cause confusion (#6)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Include an extensibility section in the browser API spec with an ISSUE marker indicating WIP. (#83)
- [web-payments-browser-api] Use of "MUST" in sentence might cause confusion (#6)
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Include an extensibility section in the browser API spec with an ISSUE marker indicating WIP. (#83)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Include an extensibility section in the browser API spec with an ISSUE marker indicating WIP. (#83)
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#76)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Shipping: should merchant supply supported destinations (#2)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Shipping: should merchant supply supported destinations (#2)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Need a "really closed" event (#45)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Need a "really closed" event (#45)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Consider allowing a web site to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button (#46)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Consider allowing a web site to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button (#46)
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Comments on 3DS Flow
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Include an extensibility section in the browser API spec with an ISSUE marker indicating WIP. (#83)
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Include an extensibility section in the browser API spec with an ISSUE marker indicating WIP. (#83)
- Re: [webpayments] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#76)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79)
- Re: [webpayments] How do we protect certian data in the messages from certain parties in the flow as the use case requires? (#78)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42)
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Checkout API spec published
- Re: [paymentrequest] Proposal to move the complete() method to the PaymentResponse interface (#48)
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Include an extensibility section in the browser API spec with an ISSUE marker indicating WIP. (#83)
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [webpayments] How do we protect certian data in the messages from certain parties in the flow as the use case requires? (#78)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79)
- Re: [webpayments] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#76)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Re: [webpayments] How can the API support enrollment (future payment) use cases? (#65)
- [paymentrequest] Proposal to move the complete() method to the PaymentResponse interface (#48)
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: [paymentrequest] Spec correctness updates based on review feedback (#47)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Spec correctness updates based on review feedback (#47)
- [paymentrequest] Spec correctness updates based on review feedback (#47)
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: Checkout API spec published
Wednesday, 10 February 2016
- Re: [webpayments] How can the API support enrollment (future payment) use cases? (#65)
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- AGENDA for our call February 11th 2016 at 17h00
- Some things that might help with PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: [webpayments] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#66)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [webpayments] How can the API support enrollment (future payment) use cases? (#65)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Re: [webpayments] How can the API support enrollment (future payment) use cases? (#65)
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: [webpayments] Should the Web Payments API cater for the invoicing part of the full web purchase flow ? (#60)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the Web Payments API cater for the invoicing part of the full web purchase flow ? (#60)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the Web Payments API cater for the invoicing part of the full web purchase flow ? (#60)
Tuesday, 9 February 2016
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [webpayments] How can the API support enrollment (future payment) use cases? (#65)
- Re: [webpayments] Should a website be able to provide a label for the "Buy" or "Checkout" button displayed in the payment app? (#66)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [webpayments] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#76)
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: Checkout API
- Re: Checkout API
- Re: Checkout API
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- PROPOSAL regarding JSON-LD material
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: Checkout API spec published
Monday, 8 February 2016
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Web Authentication Working Group Launched
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Re: Checkout API spec published
- Checkout API spec published
Sunday, 7 February 2016
- Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79)
- Re: [webpayments] How do we protect certian data in the messages from certain parties in the flow as the use case requires? (#78)
- Re: [webpayments] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#76)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
Saturday, 6 February 2016
- interested in JSON-LD
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
Friday, 5 February 2016
Thursday, 4 February 2016
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- [Minutes] 4 Feb 2016 WPWG teleconference
- [webpayments] PSD2 about Payment Initiation 4 Feb 2016 (#82)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Re: [webpayments] How do we protect certian data in the messages from certain parties in the flow as the use case requires? (#78)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Re: [webpayments] Should a Payment Request API have shipping address APIs? (#39)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Checkout API
- Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79)
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Re: [webpayments] How do we protect certian data in the messages from certain parties in the flow as the use case requires? (#78)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79)
- Re: [webpayments] Updated card participants for ISO20022 (#81)
- [webpayments] Updated card participants for ISO20022 (#81)
- Re: [webpayments] What is the appropriate conversational pattern for the API? (#55)
- Re: [webpayments] Returned Skin to default, moved target flows out of directory structure, removed partial flows for SEPA Credit Transfer (#80)
- Re: [webpayments] Returned Skin to default, moved target flows out of directory structure, removed partial flows for SEPA Credit Transfer (#80)
- [webpayments] Returned Skin to default, moved target flows out of directory structure, removed partial flows for SEPA Credit Transfer (#80)
- Telecon 4th February 2016 at 17:00 UTC
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: The PaymentRequest object SHOULD NOT expose internal state information to the developer. Any design that requires developers to manage or understand the request state is a compromise in the API design that should be avoided where possible. (#64)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] How do we protect certian data in the messages from certain parties in the flow as the use case requires? (#78)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79)
- Re: [webpayments] How should the message schemas for the payment request and response be defined? (#27)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#41)
- Re: [webpayments] Should a payment method identifier (URL) resolve to a machine readable resource that describes the payment method? (#30)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#41)
- [webpayments] Should the payment request support multiple pricing options? (#79)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#41)
- Re: [paymentrequest] Combine API parameters into a single request object + options (#41)
- Re: ACTION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED: Flows ready for wider review
Monday, 1 February 2016
- Re: [webpayments] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#76)
- Registration for ILP Workshop is OPEN
- Re: [webpayments] How are cloud-based payment apps supported? (#16)
- Re: [webpayments] How are cloud-based payment apps supported? (#16)
- ACTION STRONGLY ENCOURAGED: Flows ready for wider review
- Re: [webpayments] How are cloud-based payment apps supported? (#16)
- Re: [webpayments] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#15)
- Re: Concerns around Web Payments HTTP API de-prioritization
- Re: [webpayments] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#76)
- RE: Concerns around Web Payments HTTP API de-prioritization
- Re: [webpayments] Should we standardise a callback mechanism for payment apps to communicate to 3rd parties? (#76)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [webpayments] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#15)
- Re: [webpayments] How are cloud-based payment apps supported? (#16)
- Re: [webpayments] How are payment apps shared between different browser brands? (#15)
- Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42)
- Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42)
- Re: [webpayments] Should we have separate specifications for payment and registration of payment apps? (#26)
- Re: [webpayments] How are payment apps registered? (#14)
- Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42)
- Re: [webpayments] How are cloud-based payment apps supported? (#16)
- [webpayments] How do we protect certian data in the messages from certain parties in the flow as the use case requires? (#78)
- Re: [webpayments] Is tracking payment request state necessary? (#35)
- Re: [webpayments] What gets registered - apps, wallets, or payment instruments? (#28)
- Re: [webpayments] What gets registered - apps, wallets, or payment instruments? (#28)
- Re: [webpayments] How are third-party native wallets integrated? (#42)
- [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Pass the list of supported payment methods and the method-specific data in a single object (#77)
- Re: [webpayments] Terminology for payer/payee, user/merchant, debtor/creditor (#59)
- Re: [webpayments] Terminology for payer/payee, user/merchant, debtor/creditor (#59)
- Re: [webpayments] Expression of monetary amounts (#40)
- Re: [webpayments] Expression of monetary amounts (#40)
- Re: [webpayments] Some amendmends (#75)
- Re: [webpayments] Some amendmends (#75)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the Web Payments API cater for the invoicing part of the full web purchase flow ? (#60)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Use strings to represent currency and amount per ISO20022 (#57)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Use strings to represent currency and amount per ISO20022 (#57)
- Re: [webpayments] Should the Web Payments API cater for the invoicing part of the full web purchase flow ? (#60)
- Re: [webpayments] ACTION: Summarize arguments for/against shipping address capture (#72)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Use strings to represent currency and amount per ISO20022 (#57)
- Re: [webpayments] PROPOSAL: Use strings to represent currency and amount per ISO20022 (#57)
- Re: [webpayments] Some amendmends (#75)