- From: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 17:03:07 +0200
- To: Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+eFz_+0hT96_kAvaW0BJVc9f21+bfuSpyCc6o8v+8G1aMMuug@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Ian and WG, I have made some updates to the payment apps wiki as requested: - I added a comment about us needing to clarify our scope. I think a lot of what was in there assumed that the scope was only payment apps that run in a browser and ignores the possibility of other apps that can still be interfaced from a browser over the Web. - I added a few definitions to differentiate between browser-based and web-based apps (per scoping question above). - I also dropped the hybrid and web-technology apps as I'm not sure these have any impact on integration with a browser (i.e. an app either runs in the browser or doesn't which is all that matters from the perspective of integration with the browser). - I added the following line to the display text: "The browser should display matched payment apps in an order that corresponds with the order of supported payment methods supplied by the payee" - I made changes to the advantages and disadvantages of the invoking and response sections based on discussions with Ian. (Although I'm still not sure I agree that JavaScript encapsulation has an advantage of flexibility, I think it's the opposite) - I corrected the steps in the JavaScript encapsulation approach to include passing the response to the browser. - Added a hybrid response approach - Made some minor changes to the data collection points
Received on Monday, 9 May 2016 15:03:35 UTC