W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-payments-wg@w3.org > May 2016

Re: Call for reviews of HTTP API and Core Messages proposals

From: Tommy Thorsen <tommyt@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 10:19:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CA+zGpV1t+n2PzCmAsyJbDhxO6t2+qsoPDvx3fVRG7Z3JW=dv8A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: Web Payments Working Group <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
Here are my thoughts regarding the HTTP API specification:

> 1. Email any review comments you have back to the mailing list.

I don't have any detailed review comments -- only high-level ones: Although
the spec looks fine, I am opposed to having two different definitions of
the payment app. As I mentioned in #128
<https://github.com/w3c/webpayments/issues/128#issuecomment-215569783>, I
think the payment app should be fully specified in a single document, which
should cover both the Web case and the HTTP case with a single
implementation. Ideally, the cases should be identical, except that in the
HTTP case, the user agent will send "Accept: application/json", whereas in
the Web case, the accept header will be "text/html;application/json".

> 2. Let us know if you think the work should be taken up by the
>    Working Group.
> 3. Note how important the work is to your organization and mention what
>    you think its priority should be.

Working for a browser vendor, the HTTP case does not actually affect me
very much, and so I don't have a very strong opinion on this. However, if
the work *is* taken up by the working group, I do have a strong opinion on
how it should be done (see my opinion above).

I would very much like to see some real use-cases for this spec. The
IoT-case with a thing in the car that connects to the parking meter and
pays for parking, seems a bit of a stretch to me. This is something that
would be much more likely implemented using physical web
<https://google.github.io/physical-web/> and a smart phone, in which case
regular web payment would work just fine.

Other scenarios I saw mentioned are auto payment of utility bills and
business-to-business payments -- do we have someone who would be the actual
users/implementors of this? I would have liked to see their opinion on how
useful this specification is, and to what extent it covers their needs.
Links to relevant discussions with relevant people in the interest group or
community group would be appreciated.

I guess I am +0.1 to this specification as it stands.
Received on Monday, 2 May 2016 13:16:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 13:16:43 UTC