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
>