- From: mattsaxon <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 07:45:55 -0700
- To: w3c/webpayments <webpayments@noreply.github.com>
- Cc:
- Message-ID: <w3c/webpayments/pull/125/c216887706@github.com>
@adrianhopebailie thanks for writing this up, and sorry its taken me so long to get around to reviewing it. I am overall happy with the proposal and support its inclusion into the WG. Below are my comments; 1. The definition of a payment request as a request from the payee to be paid removes the ability for unsolicited payments, e.g. donations. We shouldn’t remove the possibility in the architecture for a payee to offer up payment for a particular service, e.g. a ‘bid’ or ‘donation’. So for example the stipulation of what to pay might not be appropriate in all cases. 2. I think another diagram showing the roles and how they interact (not just sequence) would be useful, this could then cover interactions as a higher level and so be wider that the Payment Request Flow diagram such things such as registration. 3. The architecture doesn’t talk about invoice/receipt processing, what role(s) is the architecture are responsible for this? 4. Similarly, payment “assistance” such as shipping address information capture is not discussed. 5. I think user-agent (in the wider than browser sense) is not covered, we perhaps need something that covers what sets up the communication between a payee and a mediator. 6. I think the diagrams of the document map discussed in in issue #138 would be useful to include too. --- 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/pull/125#issuecomment-216887706
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2016 14:46:25 UTC