Re: [w3c/webpayments] Finer points of integration with Web App Manifest (#225)

Re new format proposed by @mgiuca 

````json
"related_applications": [
    {
      "platform": "play",
      "url": "https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.bobpay",
      "fingerprints": [ 
        {"format": "sha256_cert", "value": "59:5C:88:65:FF:C4:E8:20:CF:F7:3E:C8..."}
      ],
      "min_version": "1",
      "id": "com.example.app1"
    }, {
      "platform": "itunes",
      "url": "https://itunes.apple.com/app/example-app1/id123456789"
    }
  ]
````

I'm OK with using this.

There's one point of interest, however. The `"sha256_cert"` is not a `"format"` per se. The _format_ is 256 bits. The string "sha256_cert" indicates that the fingerprint is calculated by taking a SHA256 hash of the certificate that was used to sign the application binary. I'm OK with using `"format": "sha256_cert"`, but I wanted to let you know ahead of time that naming is a bit confusing.

-- 
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/issues/225#issuecomment-291147817