- From: Nick Telford-Reed <nick@stormglass.consulting>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 10:45:46 +0000
- To: Stephen McGruer <smcgruer@google.com>
- Cc: Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@fynbos.dev>, Web Payments Working Group <public-payments-wg@w3.org>, Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Rouslan Solomakhin <rouslan@google.com>, Junhui He <junhuihe@google.com>, Aneesh Ali Nainamvalappil Cheriyakath <aneeshali@google.com>, Sujie Zhu <sujiezhu@google.com>, Irene Chang <irenelchang@google.com>, Alex Lakatos <alex@interledger.org>
- Message-ID: <CABcn+k5n=H7YdEdLh4cKDPnTX9LdpykYKvy8zhA+HB2rg8mpDA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Stephen, The co-chairs and Ian will talk about this at our chairs call today. Nick On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 14:50, Stephen McGruer <smcgruer@google.com> wrote: > Hi Adrian, > > That's an interesting thought, thanks for raising it! To be clear, it > would be up to the Web Monetization editors to propose the WPWG also adopt > that work, if they wanted to do so, and up to the WPWG to discuss in the > same manner as for facilitated payment links. If you're interested in > pursuing that, I think it would be useful for the Web Monetization folks to > give an update to the WPWG on where the specification is at, any recent > progress, etc - similar to what we heard from facilitated payment links > this week. > > In terms of the overlap: from the Google side, we view Web Monetization as > related but distinct > <https://github.com/WICG/paymentlink/blob/main/docs/prior_art_considerations.md>, > such that I wouldn't propose to combine them. While the underlying > technological implementation may be very similar (<link> elements), the > purpose/product goals of the two seem notably different. Facilitated > payment links are supporting a similar goal as the Payment Request/Payment > Handler specifications - one-off payments that require active user > interaction to complete. Facilitated payment links also deliberately (and > like PR/PH) gives the browser a lot of leeway in deciding what scenarios to > support, whereas as far as I know Web Monetization is and has to be more > specific about requiring the browser to handle ~all Web Monetization links > and be more involved in money flows. > > To be clear, that last paragraph is my/our opinion and shouldn't stop the > WPWG from discussing any of this! I just think it's a separate discussion > at this time :). > > Thank, > Stephen > > On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 at 09:15, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@fynbos.dev> > wrote: > >> Hi Stephen, >> >> Given the strong overlap in the two specifications, and given that the >> existing incubation tools would be the same (e.g. the web monetization >> browser extension), would it make sense to also add Web Monetization to the >> WPWG charter. >> I suspect that there is a potential path to adoption for both proposals >> that ends with a single specification. >> >> Adrian >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 3:56 PM Stephen McGruer <smcgruer@google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> As you may know, we (Google) have been developing a specification for >>> 'facilitated payment links' in the WICG - >>> https://github.com/WICG/paymentlink . Junhui presented an update on it >>> in yesterday's WPWG meeting (minutes >>> <https://www.w3.org/2025/01/30-wpwg-minutes.html#a59a>, slides >>> <https://www.w3.org/2025/Talks/google-paymentlink-20250130.pdf>), and >>> we really appreciated the interest, discussion, and questions we received >>> out of that presentation. >>> >>> Out of this, we would like to propose moving the 'facilitated payment >>> link' work from the WICG to the WPWG. It seems a fairly clear fit to me, >>> given the overlap in scope and also the potential for building a clearer >>> relationship between 'facilitated payment links' and existing WPWG-driven >>> APIs (Payment Request, Payment Handler). The initial output of the >>> 'facilitated payments link' work is likely to be a spec change to the HTML >>> specification (as that is where <link> elements are specified), but I could >>> see future extensions to Payment Request and Payment Handler too. >>> >>> I believe that adopting 'facilitated payment links' into the WPWG would >>> require rechartering the WPWG, as our current charter is tightly restricted >>> to SPC, Payment Request, and Payment Handler. I'm not sure of the process >>> here in gaining group consent (or not!) to either adopt 'facilitated >>> payment links' or to re-charter, so hopefully Ian can help guide us along >>> the way! :) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Stephen >>> >>> -- >>> smcgruer • he / him >>> >> > > -- > smcgruer • he / him > -- e: nick@stormglass.consulting l: https://linkedin.com/in/nicktr w: https://stormglass.consulting m: +447538177619
Received on Monday, 3 February 2025 10:46:27 UTC