W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-payments-wg@w3.org > November 2018

Re: SEEKING INPUT: Priority of adding hasEnrolledInstrument method to Payment Request API in version 1

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 14:00:22 -0600
Cc: Payments WG <public-payments-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B76DC33B-0EA2-416A-9298-ABD3845E0C4D@w3.org>
To: Andy Estes <aestes@apple.com>

> On Nov 7, 2018, at 1:33 PM, Andy Estes <aestes@apple.com> wrote:
> Hi Ian,
>> On Nov 7, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> wrote:
>> 2. I would like the editors to specify the hasEnrolledInstrument method but prefer that it not be a normative part of Payment Request API v1
> Just so I understand the choices, can you say a little more about this option?
> Would the definition be normative in the editor’s draft but not in the version published on w3.org? Is the plan to then include it in a future v2?

Hi Andy,

That’s a fair question and I admit I have not put much thought into it. 

I think there are at least two points to make, both of which imply “we need more discussion”:

 1) Does the group plan to include this in v2? My sense from TPAC is that this would be desirable. However, we have not as a group
     discussed in detail how we plan to add features after v1. (Personally I would like to see us develop a process where we agree
     to add features incrementally.) 

 2) How do we refer to an informative feature? We can include an informative note that the group will continue work on a second method.
     How we include and annotate features that are for post v1” is something to discuss, and i expect Marcos has some ideas on this :)


Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Tel: +1 718 260 9447
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2018 20:00:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:43:31 UTC