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

RE: Updates to Payment Apps wiki page

From: David Ezell <David_E3@VERIFONE.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 00:01:18 +0000
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
CC: Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BLUPR03MB1331902E496338E16D4E8A0AC8710@BLUPR03MB1331.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Hello all:

I have a question.
Ian wrote:
> This seems like a good WG call question: whether the scope of its initial work
> will be web-based payment apps or (the subset) browser-based payment
> apps.

What does "initial work" mean, exactly, in terms of documents and rec-track progress?

Best regards,
David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 5:43 PM
> To: Adrian Hope-Bailie
> Cc: Payments WG
> Subject: Re: Updates to Payment Apps wiki page
> 
> 
> > On May 9, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> 
> Thanks, Adrian. I made some edits to your text, primarily to “tighten things
> up” (and mostly by moving things around or tweaking the text).
> 
> This seems like a good WG call question: whether the scope of its initial work
> will be web-based payment apps or (the subset) browser-based payment
> apps.
> 
> Ian
> 
> --
> Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>      http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs

> Tel:                       +1 718 260 9447
> 
> 

Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2016 00:02:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 10 May 2016 00:02:21 UTC