Re: Rethinking Apps Payments API, Re: Payment App API: updated flow description

On January 24, 2017 at 3:27:26 PM, Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) wrote:
> The verbosity has been intentional. We have been trying to communicate a model
> to people, not all of whom read WebIDL.

So then this stuff should not be in the spec or in a spec-like format.
If we wish to incubate ideas, then we should use an Explainer document
instead, no?

>  Earlier versions of the spec said “This section
> is likely temporary” so we may in fact chop out a bunch of it or move it to another document.
> But we’ve been using it for communications of design choices and model.

As above. We should find a better way of incubating this stuff. As an
implementer, I'm finding it very confusing and would prefer it was not
in a spec format.

> I would not want to throw it out just yet, but I am open to pruning it once we go to FPWD.

I don't think we should throw anything out: just move it to some other
place that is not the spec. Ideally, what should be in the spec for
FPWD is some rough IDL and JS examples of how the IDL meets the core
set of use cases, and place holder for algorithms.

The use cases:

 * Getting permission
 * adding, removing, updating, payment methods
 * handling .canMakePayment(),
 * handling POSTing for payment (without a secure window).
 * Getting the browser to open a secure window
 * handing PaymentRequest .abort(), .updateWith(), and whatever else
PaymentRequest can throw at us.
 * creating a PaymentResponse - and showing how it coordinates between
the secure window and merchant.
 * Other critical things that I can't think of right now...

That would provide a proof-of-concept, give the API shape, and have
much less ambiguity than the prose right now.

WDYT?

Received on Monday, 30 January 2017 09:45:43 UTC